Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ED 314 586
TILE
INSTITUTION
REPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM
PUB TYPE
EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
DOCUMENT RESUME
CE 053 865
Job Training Partnership Act Youth EmploymentAmendments of 1989. Part 1. Hearings before theSubcommittee on Employment and rroductivity of theCommittee on Labor and Human Resources, United StatesSenate, One Hundred First Congress, First Session onS. 543 (Washington, D.C., March 9 and 16, 1989; LosAngeles, California, March 30, 1989).Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C. SenateCommittee on Labor and Human Resources.Senate-Hrg-101-56-Pt-1Mar 89294p.
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional SalesOffice, U.S. Govzrnment Printing Office, Washington,DC 20402.
Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (u90)
MFO1 /PC12 Plus Postage.
Adult Basic Education; *Employment Programs; *FederalLegislation; *Federal Programs; Hearings; High SchoolEquivalency Programs; *Job Training; Outcomes ofEducation; Program Effectiveness; *ProgramImprovement; *Youth EmploymentCongress 101st; *Job Training Partnership Act 1982;Proposed Legislation
This document reports the oral testimony and preparedstatements of persons who testified about proposed amendments to theJob Training Partnership Act (JTPA) during three hearings in March1989. The proposed legislation would divide youth and adult servicesunder JTPA, move some services from one segment to another, andincrease funding for both adult and youth components. The hearingreport includes an introductory statement by Senator Paul Simon,chairman of the subcommittee; text of the legislation (S. 543) asintroduced; and a summary and section-by-section analysis of thebill. Persons who testified included representatives of the UnitedStates Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, andNational Governors' Association, as well as representatives of theNational Association of Private Industry Councils and city and countyemployment officials of Los Angeles. Testimony centered on successstories of JTPA, areas that need improvement, the tendency to "cream"in JTPA programs to make results look good, and the need foradditional funding. (KC)
**************************************************X**********X*********Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.***********************************************************************
S. HRG. 101-56, PT. 1
JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT YOUTH
EMPLOYMENT AMENDMENTS OF 1989
HEARINGSBEFORE THE
SUBCOMJITTEE ONEMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATEONE HUNDRED FIRST CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 543TO AMEND THE JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT TO STRENGTHEN
THE PROGRAM OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ASSISTANCE UNDERTHAT ACT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
MARCH 9 AND 16, 1989, WASHINGTON, DCMARCH 30, 1939, LOS ANGELES, CA
PART I U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOnce of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
VT; is document has been reproduced asreceived from the Person or organizationoriginating it
C Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction Quality
Points of view or opinionsstaledin thisdocu-ment do not necessarily repret^nt officialOERI position or policy
Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources 49'
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE97-712 WASHINGTON : 1989
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, CongressionalSales OfficeU.S. Governmbn, Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402r BEsT copy AVAILABLE
CO1VAMTITEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN- RESOURCESEDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode IslandHOWARD M. MBTZENBAUM, OhioSPARK M. MATSUNAGA, HawaiiCHRISTOPHER J. DODD, ConnecticutPAUL SIMON, IllinoisTOM HARKIN, IowaBROCK ADAMS, WashingtonBARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
Nam Lim-urn:1A Staff Director and Chief CounselKlusrum A. IvsasoN, Minority Staff Director
ORRIN G. HATCH, UtahNANCY LANDON KASSEBAUM, KansasJIM JEFFORDS, VermontDAN COATS, IndianaSTROM THURMOND, South CarolinaDAVE DURENBERGER, MinnesotaTHAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
SvBcommrrra ON ElsiPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
PAUL SIMON, Illinois, ChairmanTOM HARIUN, IowaBROCK ADAMS, WashingtonBARBARA A. MIKUISKI, MarylandEDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
(Ex Officio)
STROM THURMOND, South CarolinaDAVE DURENBERGER, MinnesotaNANCY LANDON KASSEBAUM, KansasORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
(Ex Officio)ClizRvi. L. &arra, Counsel
CRAIG HAUSELMI Mrrz, Minority Counsel
,1JEIMIAVA Y903 Tait
CONTENTS
STATEMENTS
THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 1989
Abramson, Hon. Jerry E., Mayor, City of Louisville, KY, on behalf of U.S.Conference of Mayors, and Hon. Hal Norgard, chairman, County Board ofCommissioners, Ramsey County, MN, on behalf of National Association ofCounties
98Prepared statements of:Mayor Abramson 102Commissioner Norgard 113Celeste, Hon. Richard F., Governor, State of Ohio, on behalf of National
Governors' Association 83Prepared statement 88Jolly, Elton, president and chief executive officer, Opportunities Industraliza-tion Centers of America, Philadelphia, PA; and Arturo Vazquez, director,Mayor's Office of Employment and Training, Chicago, IL 126Prepared statements of:
Mr. Jolly 129Mr. Grisham, represented by Mr. Vazquez 139Simon, Hon. Paul, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois, prepared state-ment
3
Page
THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 1989
Edelman, Marian Wright, president, Children's Defense Fund 152Prepared statement 158Kolberg, William H., president, National Alliance of Business; and Jack Klep-inger, chairman, board of directors, National Association of Private Indus-try Council
167Prepared statements of:Mr. Kolberg 170Mr. Klepinger 186National Conference of State Legislatures, prepared statement 223Shinn, William, personnel and employment relations manager, Louis RichCo., on behalf of the National Rehabilitation Association; and Susan Dunn,
assistant commissioner, Washington State Employment Security Depart-ment, on behalf of State JTPA Liaison Organization 201Prepared statements o1
Mr. Shinn 203Ms. Dunn211
THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 1989
LOS ANGELES, CA
Alatorre, Councilman Richard, chairman, Police, Fire, and Public Safety Com-mittee, City of Los Angeles 230Bloom, Robert L., executive director, Alameda County Private Industry Coun-cil
283Frandsen, Russell M., vice-chair, Los Angeles County Private Industry Coun-cil242Prepared statement (with attakthments) 246Hermosillo, Arley, a JTPA participant for the Chicana Service Center, Inc 232
IVPage
Kiddoo, Kaye Rex, director, Employment Development Department, State ofCalifornia 286
Porter, Steve, assistant general manager, Community Development Depart-ment, City of Los Angeles 237
Prepared statement 239Randolph, Vernon, graduate, Duke Ellington Continuation High School and
JTPA Program 233Schumer, Rob, associate director of field studies, UCLA 236
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Articles, publications, etc.:Text of S. 543 a. introduced in SenateSummary and sectionby-section of S. 543
765
JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT YOUTHEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENTS OF 1989
THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 1989
U.S. SENATE,SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY,
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES,Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in roomSD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Paul Simon(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Simon and Thurmond.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SIMONSenator SIMON. The subcommittee will come to order.We are holding hearings today on legislation that I have intro-
duced together with Senators Kennedy and Mikulski that is aimedto target the JTPA program a little more specifically, and we arehere to hear reaction from some key people in terms of where weshould to be going on the JTPA program.
There are five major components to the proposal that we have.One, a formula change to improve the targeting of funds to the eco-nomically disadvantaged; 2) the creation of separate parts underthis Title for programs to serve only adults over the age of 24 inTitle II-A and to serve youth ages 16 through 24 in year-aroundprograms, for youth who also need remedial educational servicesand summer employment programs in Title II-B; 3) modificationsto the present composition of the Private Industry Councils, thePICs, while retaining the requirement that the PIC chair be a rep-resentative of the private sector; 4) the creation of the new "FairChance: Youth Opportunity Challenge Grant" partnership programserving youth, and 5) an increase of $150 million in Title II-Afunds and $150 million in Title II-B funds over current appropria-tions and II-A youth funds now in II-B.
Basically, the problem of unerr loyment has not disappeared. Weare getting some rosy statistic, but those rosy statistics ignoresome realities. They ignore the pockets of poverty that exist in oursociety; if you are employed one day a week or even one hour aweekyou are not counted as unemployed. We have about 3 mil-lion Americans working two days a week or less who want to beworking full-time who are not counted as unemployed. And someother little things have happened. We have in recent years addedthe armed forces into the number of those employed, so that all ofa sudden it looks better.
(1)
C
2
But I think it was significant, and I was pleased, when the newSecretary of Labor, at the time the President ma:e the announce-ment of her nomination, said she had just been to a kitchen for thehomeless, and one man came up and said, "If only I could have ajob." That happened in Washington, D.C. It is out there. And thiscountry has to do better.
We have to a great extent ignored the underclass in our society,and there is an underclass in our society. One of the few programsthat really deals with that is the JTPA program, and we want tomake this legislation more effective.
[The prepared statement of Senator Simon, text of S. 543 as in-troduced, summary of the bill, and section-by-section analysis ofthe bill follow:]
7
OPENING STATEMENT FOR SENATOR PAUL SIMON (D-IL)HEARING ON THE'THE JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AMENDMENTS OF 1989SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
March 9, 1989
GOOD AFTERNOON. I WELCOME EACH OF MY COLLEAGUES AND EACH OF OURWITNESSES TO THIS HEARING. TODAY'S HEARING IS THE FIRST IN A SERIESIN .THIS SUBCOMMITTEE FOR THE 101ST CONGRESS ON MY BILL TO AMEND THEJOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT (JTPA). THIS BILL, S. 543 THE JTPAYOUTH 12MPLOYMENT AMENDMENTS OF 1989" WAS INTRODUCED YESTERDAY AND ILOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH EACH OF YOU AS THIS BILL PROGRESSESTHROUGH THE COMMITTEE.
WHILE I WELCCME ALL OF THE WITNESSES HEAR TODAY, I ESPECIALLY WANT TOWELCOME MY FRIEND, RICHARD CELESTE, THE GOVERNOR OF OHIO. I LOOKFORWARD TO HIS AND EACH OF THE PANELIST'S TESTIMONY HERE TODAY.
AS MANY OF YOU MAY ALREADY KNOW, MY BILL TO AMEND JTPA WAS INTRODUCEDIN THE SENATE YESTERDAY, BUT IT IS ONE I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON FOR THELAST EIGHT MONTHS. A PREVIOUS DRAFT VERSION OF THIS BILL WAS THESUBJECT OF SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS IN THE LAST CONGRESS. I ALSO WANT TOMENTION THAT THIS BILL HAS BEEN COSPONSORED BY SENATORS KENNEDY ANDMIKULSXI. IN ADDITION, I WANT TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION TO CHAIRMANHAWKINS, OF THE HOUSE EDUCATION AND LABOR COMMITTEE, WHO WASINSTRUMENTAL IN AUTHORING THE ORIGINAL ACT, ALOE& WITH SENATOR KENNEDYAND OUR FORMER COLLEAGUE ON THE COMMITTEE, VICE PRESIDENT QUAYLE. IKNOW CHAIRMAN HAWKINS IS ALSO PLANNING TO INTRODUCE A BILL AND I LOOKFORWARD TO WORKING WITH HIM.
MY BILL IS DESIGNED TO STRENGTHEN EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ASSISTANCEPROGRAMS AND TO IMPROVE THE TARGETING OF SERVICES TO ECONOMICALLYDISADVANTAGED ADULTS AND YOUTH, PARTICULARLY THOSE SERVED UNDER TITLEIIA and IIB.
BRIEFLY, THERE ARE FIVE MAJOR COMPONENTS TO THIS BILL: (1) A FORMULACHANGE TO IMPROVE THE TARGETING OF FUNDS TO THE ECONCH/CALLYDISADVANTAGED; (2) THE CREATION OF SEPARATE PARTS UNDER THIS TITLE FORPROGRAMS TO SERVE ONLY ADULTS OVER TEE AGE OF 24 IN TITLE IIA AND TOSERVE YOUTH AGED 16 THROUGH 24 IN YEAR-ROUND PROGRAMS AND SUMMEREMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS IN TITLE IIB; (3) MODIFICATIONS TO THE PRESENTCOMPOSITION OF THE rRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCILS (PICa), WHILE RETAININGTHE REQUIREMENT THAT THE PIC CHAIR BE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRIVATESECTOR; (4) THE CREATION OF THE NEW *FAIR CHANCE: YOUTH OPPORTUNITYCHALLENGE GRANT" PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM SERVING YCUTH; AND (5) ANINCREASE OF $150 MILLION IN TITLE IIA FUNDS AND $150 MILLION IN TITLEIIB FUNDS OVER CURRENT APPROPRIATIONS.
WE ARE FACING -- AND OUR NATION IS FACING TODAY -- THE ONE ENEMY NOPEACE-TIME ECONOMY HAS DEFEATED -- UNEMPLOYMENT. ACHIEVING FULLEMPLOYMENT IS THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP FOR A HUMANE SOCIETY AND A SOCIETYTHAT INTENDS TO SQUARELY CONFRONT THE ISSUES OF LONG-TERMCOMPETITIVENESS AND PRODUCTIVITY. WE rANNOT BE COMPETITIVE OR
4
2
PRODUCTIVE WHEN 10 MILLION AMERICANS ARE OUT OF WORK AND REPRESENT A
DEBIT, RATHER THAN A CREDIT OR ASSET TO SOCIETY. WE MUST MEET THECHALLENGE TO 'PUT AMERICA BACK TO WORK' FOR A SIMPLE REASON. WE HAVE
TWO OPTIONS -- TO PAY PEOPLE WHO ARE OUT OF WORK FOR DOING SOMETHING,
OR TO PAY THEM FOR DOING NOTHING. I PREFER TO PAY THEM FOR DOING
SOMETHING.
DURING THE PAST EIGHT YEARS, BOTH THE REAGAN AND BUSH ADMINISTRATIONSHAVE PRIDED THEMSELVES ON THEIR EFFORTS TO LOWER UNWPLOYNENT -- AND
IT HAS BEEN REDUCED -- HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME WE ARE SEEING
ALARMING INCREASES IN THE NUMBER OF HOMELESS, ESPECIALLY AMONG
FAMILIES AND THOSE SIMPLY DISCOURAGED AND NO LONGER SEEKING WORK. WE
ARE SEEING AN INCREASING PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN BORN INTO POVERTY EACH
YEAR, ANL RAPIDLY ESCALATING CRIME AND MURDER RATES IN OUR INNER
CITIES. I WONDER HOW MANY OF OUR UNEMPLOYED ARE DISCOURAGED WORKERS
ARE YOUNG MALES OR TEEN-PARENTS WHO HAVE NEVER ENTERED THE LABOR FORCE
AND WOULD BE RESCUED FROM WELFARE OR INCARCERATION IF A MEANINGFUL JOB
WAS IN THEIR FUTURE?
IP ONE THING IS CLEAR, IT IS THAT THE PROBLEM CAN BE DEFINED BY THESE
STARTLING STATISTICSt
* In 1986, of 4 million young adults who are high school dropouts, one in four was unemployed, and many have never even
entered the labor force.
* Another 36 million Americana have some form of disabling
condition. Two-thirds of thoso are unemployed and 2/3rd's aretrying to find jobs. For Black Americans with disabilities theunemployment rate is 83%.
* On the average a low-income student can count on receiving
about $5,000 per year over four years in federal studentassistance to help pay the cost of a college education. That
same young man or young woman -- if he or she chooses not totend college -- will be eligible for only $1,800 for four
months of job training and educational assistance under JTPA.
* In 1987, New York Telephone Company had to test 60,000applicants, many of whom were minorities, in order to hire
3,000 entry-level personnel.
* There are now more black college-age young men in America's
prisons than in our colleges and universities! Even as the
number of black high school graduates grows, the percentage of
blacks entering college is declining.
* The Pennsylvania State University has estimated that the cost
of not educating and training disadvantaged young men and women
for employment costs America $225 billion each year -- in lost
productivity and in welfare payments expenses related to crime
prevention and the criminal justice system.
CRITICISMS OF JTPA
5
3
THE WAY THE JTPA IS CURRENTLY STRUCTWED, IT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MEETTHE GOAL OF PROVIDING A PRODUCTIVE SKILLED WORKFORCE BY THE YEAR 2000.A PROGRAM-THAT ENROLLS 37% OF ITS PARTICIPANTS IN SHORT TERM TRAININGPROGRAMS, (AND A MAJORITY OF THE REST OF ENROLLEES ARE IN ON-THE-JOB-TRAINING AND JOB SERVICE PROGRAMS), WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SIGNIFICANTLYIMPROVE THE SKILLED LABOR SHORTAGE. A PROGRAM WILL NOT SUCCEED INTRAINING THE 'HARD TO SERVE" IP THE PROGRAM DOES NOT PROVIDEINCENTIVES TO SERVE THOSE PARTICIPANTS MOST IN NEED OF TRAINING ANDPROVIDE THEM MORE COMPREHENSIVE TRAINING SERVICES.
JTPA HAS ACCOMPLISHED ITS GOALS OP INCREASED PARTICIPATION OF THEPRIVATE SECTOR, HIGHER PLACEMENT RATES AND LOWER COSTS PER PLACEMENT.WHY THEN IS ANYONE COMPLAINING ABOUT A PROGRAM THAT HAS ACHIEVED SUCHGOOD RESULTS? IT IS BECAUSE JTPA IS PILING IN ITS MISSION OFPROVIDING JOB TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE MOST IN NEED* AND INMEETING THE COUNTRY'S NEED., IN KEEPING AMERICA COMPETITIVE IN WORLDMARKETS.
A SIMON SOLUTION
ONE OF THE MAJOR PROPOSALS IN MY BILL IS TO MODIFY THE COMPOSITION OPPRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL (PIC). WE MUST BROADEN THE REPRESENTATION OPTHE PIC IF WE ARE GOING TO EXPECT ANY COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION OREDUCATION, PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, LABOR, ANDVOCATIONAL REHABILITATION PROGRAMS TO WORK MORE CLOSELY WITH THEPRIVATE SECTOR AND THE JTPA PROGRAM AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
THERE IS ALSO ONE OTHER REASON FOR EXPANDING THE MEMBERSHIP ANDBROADENING THE REPRESENTATION ON LOCAL PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCILS. THEAPPROPRIATION LEVELS FOR TITLES IIA AND /IB HAVE BEEN STAGNANT FOR THEPAST EIGHT YEARS. WE WILL NEVER MEET THE NATION'S TRAINING NEEDS IFWE SERVE ONLY FOUR PER CENT OF THE JTPA ELIGIBLES. CLEARLY, WITHOUTMORE MONEY WE CANNOT REACH THE 'HARD-TO SERVE' NOR ALL 07 THOSE WHOCOULD BENEFIT FROM JTPA.
FUNDING FORMULA sHANGE
THIS BRINGS ME Ti) THE OTHER AAJOR IMPETUS BEHIND THIS BILL -- BETTERTARGETING OF LIMITED 17MKPAL RESOURCES ON THE "TRULY DISADVANTAGED,'THE LONG-TERM, HARD-CORE UNEMPLOYED, AND OUR YOUTH WHO HAVE NEVERENTERED THE LABOR FORCE AND HAVE NO MEANS TO DO SO WITHOUT THE DIRECTINTERVENTION OF THIS PROGRAM. I DO NOT NEED TO LIST FOR TO YOU THEMANY STUDIES THAT HAVE ALL DOCUMENTED VARIOUS SHORTCOMINGS IN THEEXISTING PROGRAM AND MADE VARIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRENGTHENINGTHE PROGRAM AND BETTER TARGETING LIMITED FEDERAL RESOURCES ON THEDISADVANTAGED.
THE TITLE II PROGRAM FORMULA DOES A POOR JOB OF TARGETING FUNDS WHERELARGE CONCENTRATIONS OF ELIGIBLE, LOW-INCOME PEOPLE RESIDE AND WHERESMALL POCKETS OF CONCENTRATED POVERTY EXIST. TO USE MY OWN STATE ASAN EXAMPLE, I WANT TO BETTER TARGET FUNDING SO THAT MORE THAN THEPRESENT 15,000 YOUTH NOW BEING SERVED OUT OF THE 200,000 INCOME-ELIGIBLE IN THE CITY OF CHICAGO ARE SERVED, AS WELL AS TO HIT THOSE
10 4
6
4
POCKETS OF SEVERE POVERTY IN SUCH PLACES AS EAST ST. LOL.J.S INDOWNSTATE ILLINOIS.
I WANT TO WLAK WITH EACH OF YOU ON THIS BILL AND I WANT TO DO WHAT ISRIGHT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE USING OUR SCARCE FEDERAL RESOURCES TOPROPERLY SERVE AHD TARGET THOSE WHO ARE JOBLESS AND ON VERGE OFHOPELESSNESS. UNEMPLOYMENT IS AN EXPENSIVE ALTERNATIVE TO PROVIDINGBASIC SKILLS, EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR OUR NATION'S UNEMPLOYED YOUTHAND ADULTS.
THE REVEREND DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. ONCE SAID, IN OUR SOCIETY,IT IS MURDER, PSYCHOLOGICAL:"/- TO DEPRIVE A MAN OF A JOB OR AN INCOME.YOU ARE IN SUBSTANCE SAYING TO: AT MAN THAT HE HAS NO RIGHT TOEXIST.' THE NATION'S HIGHEST CMMITMENT -- OUR MOST IMPORTANTNATIONAL GOAL MUST BE TO PROVIDE A JOB OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE WHOWANTS TO %OMR.
IP WE WANT PEOPLE TO WORK, THEN WE MUST PROVIDE THE EDUCATION ANDTRAINING THAT MAKES EMPLOYMENT AND A L:VING WAGE A REALITY IN THELIVES OP ALL AMERICANS. WE MUST BUILD PRODUCTIVITY THROUGHEMPLOYMENT. FULL EMPLOYMENT WILL COME WHEN BASIC SKILLS EDUCATION ANDTRAINING ARE AVAILABLE TO ALL. MY BILL ;MOVES US IN THAT DIRECTION.
I LOOK PORWARD TO HEARING THE TESTIMONY OP OUR WITNESSES TODAY ON THISIMPORTANT ISSUE.
'I
tt
10181" CONGRESS1ST SESSION S. 543To amend the Job Training Partnership Act to strengthen the program of
employment and training assistance under that Act, and for other purposes.
IN TIM SENATE OF TIM UNITED STATES
MA en 8 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 1969
Mr. SnsoN (for himself, hr. KENNEDY, and Ma. IIIKUTAIU) introduced the follow-ing hill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor andIf arum Resources
A BILLTO amend the Job Training Partnership Act to strengthen the
program of employment and training assistance under thatAct, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Bepresenta-
2 lives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
S SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the "Job Training Partnership
5 Act Youth Employment Amendments of 1989".,.0 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
7 (a) AUTHORIZATION FOR ADULT AND YOUTH PRO-
S ORAM8.Section 3(a)(1) of the Job TrainingPartnership Act
9 '(hereinafter referred to as the "Act") is amended by-
it
1
8
2
1 (1) inserting "(A)" after the paragraph designa-
2 tion;
3 (2) striking "There" and inserting in lieu thereof
4 "Except as provided in subparagraph (B), there"; and
5 (3) inserting the following new subparagraph:
6 "(B) There are authorized to be appropriated
7 $1,223,000,000 for fiscal year 1990 to carry out the provi-
8 sions of part A of title II and title IV (other than part B of
9 such title) of this Act.".
10 (b) AUTHORIZATION FOR YOUTH PROGRAMS.(1)
11 Section 3(b) of the Act is amended by-
12 (A) inserting "(1)" after the subsection designa-
13 tion;
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
(B) striking "There" and inserting "Except as
provided in paragraph (2), there"; and
(C) inserting the following new paragraph:
"(2) There are authorized to be appropriated
$1,574,000,000 for fiscal year 1990 to carry out the provi-
sions of part B of title II of this Act.".
(2) Section 3 of the Act is amended by redesignating
subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) as subsections (d), (e), (f),
(g), and (h), respectively; and
(3) by inserting the following new ..asection after sub-
section (b);
S 549 IS 1 3.
9
3
1 "(OW Not withstanding any other provision of this Act,
2 the total amount allotted to each State under parts A and B
3 of title II shall equal ,r exceed the amount allotted to such
4 State under such parts for fiscal year 1989.
5 "(2) If he amounts appropriated under subsections (a)
6 and (b) of this section for any fiscal year are insufficient to
7 meet the requirements of paragraph (1), the total amount al-
8 lotted under parts A and B of title II shall be ratably re-
9 duced.".
10 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
11 (a) IN GENERAL. Section 4 of the Act is amended-12 (1) in clause (F) of paragraph (8) by inserting "or
1::' youth" after "adult"; and
14 (2) by adding the following new paragraph after
15 paragraph (29):
16 "(30) The term 'long term recipient' means an in-
17 dividual who has received-
18 "(A) cash payments made pursuant to part A
19 of title IV of the Social Security Act (relating to
20 the aid to families with dependent children pro-
21 gram);
22 "(B) general welfare assistance to Indians, as
23 provided pursuant to the Act of November 2,
24 1921 (25 U.S.C. (13)), commonly referred to as25 the Snyder Act;
OS S13 1B
10
4
1 "(0) cash assistance and medical assistance
2 for refugee:: made available pursuant to section
3 412(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; or
4 "(D) benefits offered pursuant to title XVI of
5 the Social Security Act (relating to supplemental
6 security income programs) and title II of such Act
7 (relating to Social Security Disability Insurance);
8 for 24 months during the 28-month period immediately
preceding application for programs offered under this
title.".
(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.Section 502 of the Act
is amended by
(1) striking paragraph (3); and
(2) redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as
paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively.
SEC. 4. PRI FATE INDUSTRY COUNCILS.
(a) COMPOSITION AMENDMENTS.(1) Section 102(a)
of the Act is amended
(A) by striking "and" at the end of paragraph (1);
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 and
21 (B) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting in lieu
22 thereof the following:
23 "(2) representatives of organized labor, and repre-,
24 sentatives of community based organizations who shall
., .
S 543 IS
11
5
1 constitute not less than 17 ?ercent of the membership
2 of the council; and
3 "(3) representatives of all educational agencies in
4 the service delivery area, including representatives of
5 institutions of higher education (including private
6 career schools), and public service agencies (including
7 employment service agencies, public assistance agen-
8 ties, and economic development agencies) who shall9 constitute not less than 25 percent of the membership
10 of the :...funcil.
11 At least one member of the private industry council appoint-
12 ed pursuant to paragraph (3) shall be s. representative of a13 program or agency providing vocational rehabilitation to
14 people with disabilities.".
15 (2) Section 102(c)(2) of the Act is amended to read as
16 follows:
17 "(2) Education representatives on the council shall be
18 selected from among individuals nominated by regional or
19 local educational agencies, vocational education institutions,
20 institutions of higher education (including private career21 schools) or general organizations of such schools and institu-
22 tions within the service delivery area.".
23 (3) Section 102(c)(3) of the Act is amended to read as
2d. follows:
eS AS 'I8
12
6
1 "(3) The labor representation on the council shall be
2 selected from individuals recommended by recognized State
3 and local labor organizations. If the Stato or local labor orga-
4 nization- cannot adequately meet the labor representation on
5 the private industry council then individuals from unorga-
6 nized labor may be included on the council to complete the
7 labor representation.
8 "(4) The remaining members of the council shall include
9 additional representatives from all sectors represented on the
10 council.".
11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.No private industry council
12 shall be considered to be in violation of the amendments
13 made by subsection (a) of this section until 3 years after the
14 date of enactment of this Act.
15 SEC. 5. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
16 (a) PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.The first sentence of
17 section 106(b)(1) of the Act is amended by inserting "the
18 acquisition of basic educational competency and" after "title
19 la is".
20 (b) MEASUREMENT OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
21 The second sentence of section 106(b)(1) is amended to read
22 as follows: "In order to determine whether these basic meas-
23 ores are achieved, the Secretary shall prescribe standards on
24 the basis of appropriate factors which may include-
41)&4541p
17
13
7
1 "(1) acquisition of basic skills and workplace com-
2 petencies including raising the grade level of reading,
3 writing, and computational stills, as well as acquisition
4 of a high school diploma or a general equivalency
5 diploma;
6 "(2) placement in unsubsidized employment;
7 "(3) retention in unsubsidized employment for
8 more than 6 months;
9 "(4) increase in earnings, including hourly wages;
10 and
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
"(5) reduction in the number of individuals and
families receiving cash welfare payments and the
amounts of such payments.".
(c) SEPARATE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.Section
106(b)(4) of the Act is amended by
(1) inserting "(A)" after the paragraph desig-
nation;
(2) inserting the following new sentence at the
end of paragraph (4)(A) (as redesignated in paragraph
(1) of this subsection): "The Secretary shall develop
one set of performance standards for hard-to-serve indi-
viduals, (including handicapped individuals), and one
set of performance standards for all other individuals
receiving assistance under this Act. Performance stand-
ards for hard-to-serve individuals should not emphasize
4I,8 Ms. V
14
8
1 cost efficiency if such emphasis would impair the effee-
2 tiveness of programs assisted under this Act."; and
3 (3) inserting the following new subparagraph at
4 the end thereof:
5 "(B) The Secretary shall also develop separate
6 performance standards for in-school and out-of-school
7 youth programs assisted under part B of title II of this
8 Act. Such performance standards shall emphasize the
9 development of appropriate outcomes for in-school and
10 out-of-school youth, such as improving basic skills and
11 long term job placement and retention.".
12 (d) SUPPORTIVE SERVICES.Section 106(b) is
13 amended by adding at the end thereof the following new
14 paragraph:
15 "(5) The Secretary shall not prescribe perform-
16 ante standards which penalize service delivery areas
17 for using funds provided for support services pursuant
18 to section 108(b)(2)(A)(iii).".
19 (e) ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR SUPPORT SERVICES.
20
21
22
23
24
Section 108 of the Act is amended by
(1) redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as
subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively; and
(2) by adding the following new subsection after
subsection (b):
03 543 V 19
15
9
1 "(c) In addition to the funds available pursuant to sub-
2 section (b)(2)(A)(iii), an additional 10 percent of the funds
3 available to a service delivery area for programs under part
4 A of title II may be expended for support servicesif"(1) such additional support services funds are
6 spent providing eligible individuals with long term
7 services;
8 "(2) the request for such additional support serv-
9 ice funds is justified in the job-training-plan required
10 under section 104; and
11 "(3) the request for such additional support sorv-
12 ice funds is approved by the Governor pursuant to sub-
13 section 105.".
14 (f) SERVICE DELIVERY AREA TRANSFER AND CON-
15 TRAOi.Part A of title I of the Act is amended by adding
16 the following new sections at the end thereof:
17 "SERVICE DELIVERY AREA TRANSFER AND CONTRACT
18 "SEC. 109. (a) Any service delivery area may cater into
19 a contract with another service delivery area to share the
20 cost of educating, training, and placement of individuals par-
21 ticipating in programs assisted under this Act, including the
22 provision of supportive services. Such contract shall include
23 all of the terms and conditions of the agreement between the
24 service delivery areas and shall be approved by an individual
25 representing each private industry council providing guidance
26 to a contracting service delivery area.
20
16
10
1 "(b) Each contracting service delivery area shall be
2 equally rewarded under the appropriate performance stand-
3 ands.
4 "CARRYOVER AND REALLOCATION
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
"SEC. 110. (a) CARRYOVER.
"(1) In any fiscal year the amount of funds allo-
cated to a service delivery area which can be carried
over to the fiscal year following the fiscal year for
which the determination is made may not exceed 10
percent of the amount of funds allocated to such serv-
ice delivery area for the year for which such determi-
nation is made.
"(2) The total amount of funds allocated to a
service delivery area which can be carried forward to
the fiscal year following the fiscal year for which the
determination is made may not exceed 20 percent of
the amount of funds allocated to such service delivery
area for the year for which such determination is
made.
"(3) In each fiscal year the Governor shall deduct
the amount of funds carried over by a service delivery
area in excess of the limitations imposed by paragraphs
(1) and (2) from the allocation for such service delivery
area for the fiscal year for which the determination is
made. Any funds deducted pursuant to this paragraph
shall be available for reallocation.
, , 111,841,3 18
1
17
11
1 "(b) SERVICE DELIVERY AREA REALLOCATION.The
2 Governor shall reallot funds available under subsection (a) of
3 this section for reallocation to those service delivery areas
4 that have expended at least 90 percent of the total funds
5 available to such service delivery area. The method the Gov-
6 ernor shall use in making such reallocation shall be the same
7 method that was originally used to allocate the funds among
8 service delivery areas within the State.
9 "(c) STATE REALLOTMENT.For program years be-
10 ginning July 1, 1989, and thereafter, the Secretary shall, in
11 accordance with the requirements of this section, reallot to
12 eligible States the funds allotted to States from funds
13 appropriated for such program year that are available for
14 reallotment.
15 "(d) AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOB REALLOTMENT.The
16 amount available for reallotment is equal to-
17 "(1) the amount by which the unexpended balance
18 of the State allotment at the end of the program year
19 prior to the program year for which the determination
20 under this section is made exceeds 20 percent of such
21 allotment for that prior program yeariplus
22 "(2) the unexpended balance of the State allot-
23 ment from any program year prior to the program year
24 in which there is such excess.
18
12
1 "(e) METHOD OF REALLOTMENT.(1) The Secretary
2 shall determine the amount that would he allotted to each
3 eligible State by using the same method that was originally
4 used to allocate among eligibly States the amount available
5 pursuant to subsection (b) of this section.
6 "(2) The Secretary shall, by using the same method that
7 was originally used, allot to eligible States the amount avail-
8 able that remains after tine allotment required by paragraph
9 (1) of this subsection.
10 "(f) DEFINITION.For purposes of this section, an eli-
11 Bible State means a State which has expended at least 80
12 percent of its allotment for the program year prior to the
13 program year for which the determination under this section
14 is made.".
15 (g) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.The table of contents
16 of the Act is amended by adding after "Sec. 108. Limitation
17 on certain cost." the following:
"Sec. 109. Service delivery area transfer and contract."Sec. 110. Carryover and reallocation.".
18 SEC. 6. ALLOTMENT AND WITHIN STATE ALLOCATION.
19 (a) ALLOTMENT.(1) Section 201(b)(1) of the Act is
20 amended-
21 (A) by striking out subparagraph (A);
22 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as
23 subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
7 43, 443 IS,
19
13
1 (C) by staking out "331/2" in subparagraph (A)
2 (as redesignated in subparagraph (B)) and inserting in
3 lieu thereof "50";
4 (D) by inserting "and" at the end of subparagraph
5 (A) (as redesignated in subparagraph (B)); and
6 (E) by striking out "331/2" in subparagraph (B)
7 (as redesignated in subparagraph (B)) and inserting in
8 lieu thereof "50".
9 (2) Section 201(b)(2)(B) of the Act is amended by strik-
10 ing the first sentence and inserting in lieu thereof the Elow-
11 ing new sentence: "No State shall be allotted mo: an 110
12 percent of its allotment percentage for the fiscal year preced-
13 ing the fiscal year for which the determination is mule unless
14 the Secretary waives the limitation imposes by this subpara-
15 graph based on a determination that such waiver will result
16 in the effective utilization of funds and enhance the achieve-
17 ment of the objc dyes of the program.".
18 (3) Section 201(b)(3)(B) of the Act is amended by-
19 (A) inserting after the word "individual" the fol-
20 lowing: "who has attained 25 years of age but not 73
21 years of age and"; and
22 (B) inserting at the end thereof the following new
23 sentence: The Secretary shall to the extent practicable,
24 exclude college students and members of the Armed
43.543 II
2 ez
20
14
1 Services from the member of economically disadvan-
2 taged
3 (b) WITHIN STATE ALLOCATION.(1) Section
4 202(a)(1) of the Act is amended by strike ig "78" and insert-
5 ing in lieu thereof "80".
6 (2) Section 202(a)(2) of the Act is amended-
7 (A) by striking out subparagraph (A);
8 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (CJ as
9 subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
10 (0) by striking out "331/4" in subparagraph (A)
11 (as redesignated in subparagraph (B)) and inserting in
12 lieu thereof "50";
13 (D) by inserting "and" at the end of subparagraph
14 (A) (as redesignated in subparagraph (B)); and
15 (E) by striking out "331/2" in subparagraph (B)
16 (as redesignated in subparagraph (B)) and inserting in
17 lieu thereof "50".
18 (3) Section 202(a)(2) of the Act is further amended by
19 adding at the end thereof the following flush sentence:
20 "The private industry council in each service delivery area
21 may reserve not more than 10 percent of the funds received
22 under this part for experimental programming for groups
23 with special needs to serve hard-to-serve eligible individuals
24 (such as long-term recipients under the Aid to Families with
25 Dependent Children program). Such funds shall be exempt
0{3 543.1&. 2
21
15
1 from performance standards. The Comptroller General shall
2 conduct a study to review and assess such experimental pro-
3 grams and shall submit the findings to the appropriate corn-
4 mittees of Congress within 2 years of the date of enactment
5 of this Act.".
6 (4) Section 202(a)(3) is amended by inserting after the
7 first sentence the following new sentence: "No service deliv-
8 cry area shall be allocates more than 110 percent of its alto-
9 cation for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which
10 the determination is made nuiess the Governor weaves the
11 limitation imposed by this subparagraph based on a determi-
12 nation that such waiver will result in the effective utilization
1? of funds and enhance the achievement of the objectives of the
14 program.".
15 (5) Section 202(a)(3)(3) of the Act is amended by-
16 (A) inserting after the word "individual" the fol-
17 lowing: "who has attained 25 years of age but not 13
18 years of age and"; and
19 (B) by inserting at the end 3reof the following
20 new sentence: "For the purpose of this subparagraph,
21 and to the extent practicable, the Secretary shall ex-
22 rude college students and members of the armed
23 forces from the number of economically disadvantaged
24 individuals.".
25 (6) Section 202(b) of the Act is amended
OS SO IS
tj
22
16
1 (A) in paragraph (1) by striking "Eight percent"
2 and inserting in lieu thereof "Five percent";
3 (B) in paragraph (1) by inserting the following
4 new sentence at the end thereof: "A State may expend
5 funds provided pursuant to this paragraph only to the
6 extent that an equal amount is expended by other Fed-
7 eral, State, local, or private sources to early out such
8 services.";
9 (0) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4)
10 as paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) respectively; and
11 (D) by inserting the following new paragraph after
12 paragraph (1):
13 "(2)(A) Three percent of the allotment of each
14 State for each fiscal year shall be forwarded to service
15 delivery areas to carry out long term training, basic
16 skills, and educational services.
17 "(B) Out of the funds reserved for the service de-
18 livery areas pursuant to this paragraph, the Secretary
19 shall provide for an independent evaluation of services
20 provided under this paragraph and the effectiveness of
21 services provided under this paragraph within one year
22 of the date of enactment of this Act.";
23 (E) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated in suhpara-
24 graph (0)) by striking "Three" and inserting "Two";
08 543 IS
27
23
17
1 (F) in paragraph (4)(A) (as redesignated in sub-
2 paragraph (C)) by striking "Six" and inserting in lieu
3 thereof "Eight"; and
4 (G) in paragraph (4)(13) (as redesignated in sub-
5 paragraph (C)) by-
6 (i) inserting "(i)" after the subparagraph des-
7 ignation; and
8 (ii) adding the following new clause:
9 "(iii) The Governor may only award incentive
10 grants to service delivery areas which provide
11 long term training or exceed performance stand-
12 arils relating to-
13 "(I) raising basic skills competencies;
14 "(II) serving hard to serve adults; and
15 "(III) providing long term job place-
16 went.
17 For the purpose of this subparagraph the term
18 'long term job placement' means employment for
19 a period of at least 9 months.".
20 SEC. 7. WIGIBILITY FOR SERVICES.
21 (a) IN GENERAL.Section 203(a)(1) is amended by-
22 (1) striking "Except as provided in paragraph (2),
23 an" and inserting "An"; and
24 (2) by adding the following at the end thereof: "In
25 providing services under this title a service delivery
28
24
18
1 area shall give special emphasis to hart -to -serve popu-
2 lations or individuals most-in-need of basic skills and
3 employment training services. A service delivery area
4 shall test a participant's reading and math skills, and
5 review an applicant's employment history in order to
6 encourage the inclusion rather than the exclusion of
7 those most in need of assistance. A service delivery
8 area is not required to test a participant's reading and
9 math skills if the results of a standardized test adminis-
10 tered to individuals within 1 year of application of such
11 individual for services under this part for reading and
12 math are made available to the service delivery area
13 for review.".
14 (b) SPECIAL RITLE.Section 203(a)(2) of the Act is
15 amended to read as follows:
16 "(2)(A) Up to 10 percent of all participants in all
17 programs in a service delivery area receiving assist-
18 ance under this part may be individuals who are not
19 economically disadvantaged if such individuals are in 2
20 or more of the classes of individuals described in sub-
21 paragraph (B)(i).
22 "(B) In addition to the individuals described in
23 subparagraph (A), an additional 5 percent of all partici-
24 pants in all programs in a service delivery area receiv-
OS 543 IS29
19
1 ing assistance under this part ms.y be individuals who
2 are not economically disadvantaged if-
3 "(i) such individuals are included in 2 or
4 more of the following categories:
5 "(I) limited English proficient individ-
6 uals;
7 "(II) displaced homemakers;
8 "(M) school dropouts;
9 "(IV) teenage parents;
10 "(V) handicapped individuals;
11 "(VI) older workers;
12 "(VII) veterans;
13 "(VIII) offenders;
14 "(IX) alcoholics;
15 "(X) addicts; or
16 "(XI) homeless individuals; and
17 "(ii) the plan for inclusion of such individuals
18 has been set forth in the job training plan pursu-
19 ant to section 104 and has been approved by the
20 Governor pursuant to section 105.".
21 (c) TRANSFER PROVISIONS.Section 203(b) is
22 amended-
23 (1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1) by strik-
24 ing out "Funds" and inserting "Except as provided in
25 paragraph (2), funds";
30
20
1 (2) in the first sentence of paragraph (1) by strik-
2 ing "youth and";
3 (3) by striking the second sentence of paragraph
4 (1); and
5 (4) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
6 "(2) A service delivery area may transfer funds provided
7 under this part to part B of this title for youth programs if a.
8 description of such transfer is included in the job training plan
9 pursuant to section 104 and the Governor approves the
10 transfer pursuant to section 105.".
11 (d) DEFINITION OF AM:MT.Section 203(c) of the Act
12 is amended to read as follows:
13 "(c) For the purposes of this title, the term 'adult'
14 means an individual who is 25 years of age or older.".
15 (e) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.(1) Section 104(6) of
16 the Act is amended-
17 (A) by redesignating paragraphs (9), (10), and (11)
18 as paragraphs (10), (11), and (12), respectively; and
19 (B) by inserting the following new paragraph after
20 paragraph (8):
21 "(9) the amount of funds transferred pursuant to
22 section 203(6)(2) and the reasons for such transfer;".
23 (2) The first sentence of section 204 of the Act is
24 amended by striking "youth and";
4113 543 Is
31
27
21
1 SEC. 8. PLACEMENT STUDY.
2 (a) IN GENERAL.Section 205 is amended to read as
3 follows:
4 "PLACEMENT STUDY
5 "Sec. 205. The Comptroller General of the United
6 States shall conduct a study to determine how many and
7 w'at percentage of adults assisted under this part remain in a
8 job in which they were placed through programs assisted
9 under this part for at least 9 months. The Comptroller Gen-
10 eral shall submit the findings to the appropriate committees
11 of Congress within 2 years of the date of enactment of this
12 Act.".
13 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.(1) The table of con-
14 tents of the Act is amended--
15 (A) by striking "AND YOUTH" in the heading for
16 part A of title II of the Act.
17 (B) in the item relating to section 205 by striking
18 "Exemplary youth programs" and inserting in lieu
19 thereof "Placement study";
20 (2) The heading for part A of title II of the Act is
21 amended by striking "AND YOUTH".
22 SEC. 9. YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM
23 ALLOTMENT.
24 (a) TITLE.Part B of title II of the Act is amended by
25 striking out "SUMMER" in the heading of such part.
418 543 18
28
\22
1 (b) Section 252(b) of the Act is amended to read as fol-
2 lows:
3 "(b) Subject to the provisions of subsections (c) and (d),
4 of the remainder of the amount available for this part for each
5 fiscal year-
6 "(1) 50 percent shall be allotted on the basis of
7 the relative number of economically disadvantaged
8 youth within each State compared to the total number
9 of economically disadvantaged youth in all States;
10 "(2) 25 percent shall be allotted on the basis of
11 the relative number of unemployed youth who reside in
12 each State compared to the total number of unem-
13 ployed youth in all the States; and
14 "(3) 25 percent shall be allotted on the basis of
15 the relative number of the economically disadvantaged
16 youth residing in areas with substantial numbers of
17 economically disadvantaged youth in each State as
18 compared to the total number of such economically dis-
19 advantaged youth in all such areas in all States.
20 "(c) No State shall be allotted less than 100 percent of
21 its allotment percentage for the fiscal year preceding the
22 fiscal year for which the determination is made.
23 "(d) No State shall be allotted more than 110 percent of
24 its allotment percentage for the fiscal year preceding the
25 fiscal year for which the determination is made unless the
*8 543 IS
3°u
23--,
I Secretary waives the limitation imposed by this subsection
2 based on a determination that such waiverNwill result in the
3 effective utilization of funds and enhance the achievement of
4 the objectives of the program.
5 "(e) For the purposes of subsection (b)
6 "(1) the term 'economically disadvantaged youth'
7 means an individual who is aged 16 through 24 and
8 who has, or is a member of a family which has, re-.9 ceived a total family income which, in relation to
10 family size, was not in excess of the highe- of the pov-
11 erty level as issued by the Office of Management and
12 Budget or 70 percent of the lower livii.g standard
13 income level. The term 'economically disadvantaged
14 youth' excludes college students and members of tx
15 armed forces, as appropriate, and to the extent practi-
16 cal, as determined by the Secretary; and
17 "(2) the term 'area with substantial numbers of
18 economical disadvantaged youth' means an area of suf-
19 ficient size and scope to sustain a program under part
20 B of title II of this Act and in which the percentage of
21 economically disadvantaged youth in the population of
22 youth aged 16 through 24 is at least 20 percent.
23 "(0(1) The Governor shall, in accordance with section
24 162, allocate the allotment of the State (under section 252(b))
97-712 - 89 - 2
30
24
1 for such fiscal year among service delivery areas within the
2 State in accordance with paragraph (2).
3 "(2) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (3), of the
4 amount available for this part for each fiscal year-
5 "(A) 50 percent shall be allocated on the basis of
6 the relative number of economically disadvantaged
7 youth within each service delivery area compared to
8 the total nthaber of economically disadvantaged youth
9 in the State; and
10 "(B) 50 percent shall be allocated on the basis of
11 the number of economically disadvantaged youth resid-
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ing in areas with substantial numbers of economically
disadvantaged youth in each service delivery area com-
pared to the total number of such economically disad-
vantaged youth in such areas in all service delivery
areas in the State.
"(3) For fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1989, no service delivery area within any State shall be allo-
cated an amount equal to less than 90 percent of the average
of its allocation percentage for fiscal year 1989. The alloca-
tion percentage for a service delivery area is the percentage
which the service delivery urea, received of the total amount
allocated pursuant to this subsection to all service delivery
areas within the State for each such preceding fiscal year. If
the amounts appropriated pursuant to section 3 (a) and (b) of
9 643 I$
3 5
31
25
1 the Act are not sufficient to provide an amount equal to at
2 least 90 percent of such allocation percentages to each such
3 area, the amounts allocated to each area shall ' e ratably re-
4 duced.
5 "(4) No service delivery area shall be allotted more than
6 110 percent of its allotment percentage for the fiscal year
7 preceding the fiscal year for which the determination is made
8 unless the Governor of the State vaives the limitation im-
9 posed by this subparagraph based on a determination that
10 such waiver will result in the effective utilization of funds and
11 enhance the achievement of the objectives of the program.
12 "(5) For purposes of paragraph (2)-
13 "(A) the term 'economically disadvantaged youth'
14 means an individual who is aged 16 through 24 and
15 who has, or is a member of a family which has, re-
16 ceived a total family income which, in relation to
17 family size, was not in excess of the higher of the pov-
18 erty level as issued by the Office of Management and
19 Budget or 70 percent of the lower living standard
20 income level. The term 'economically disadvantaged
21 youth' excludes college students and members of the
22 armed forces as appropriate and to the extent practical
23 as determined by the Secretary; and
32
26
1 "(B) the term 'area with substantial numbers of
2 economically disadvantaged youth' has the same mean-
3 ing given that term in subsection (e)(3).".
4 SEC. 10. USE OF FUNDS.
5 (a) IN GENERAL.Section 253(a) of the Act is amend-
6 ed by-
7 (1) striking "and" at the end of paragraph (1);
8 (2) striking the period at the end of paragraph (2)
9 and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon; and
10 (3) adding at the end thereof the following:
11 "(3) needs-based payments necessary to partici-
12 pate in the program in accordance with a locally devel-
13 oped formula or procedure; and
14 "(4) compensation in the form of work experience
15 wages.".
16 (b) ADDITIONAL SERVICES.Section 253 of the Act is
17 amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sub-
18 sections:
19 "(c)(1) In addition to the services set forth in section
20 255(2) funds available for this part may be used, where ap-
21 propriate, to provide the following services to in school, drop-
22 uut prone youth:
23 "(A) combined basic and life skills instruction, and
24 work experience during the summer months;
OS 643 IS
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 lems;
18 "(D) is a tan parent;
19 "(E) is of limited English proficiency;
20 "(F) is a juvenile offender; or
21 "((I) is educationally and economically disadvan-
22 taged.
23 "(d) In addition to the services set forth in section
24 255(2) funds available for this part may be used, where ap-
27
"(B) enriched basic skills and study skills training,
including tutoring, during the school year;
"(0) supplemental school year activities such as
individual and group counseling, mkloring, career
awareness, and social group and educational activities;
"(D) preemployment and socialization skills and
behavior training; and
"(E) supportive services necessary to enable indi-
viduals to participate in the program.
"(2) For the purposes of this subsection the term 'drop-
out prone youth' is a youth who
"(A) is at risk of academic failure or of dropping
out of school;
"(B) has high absentee rates in addition to poor
grades;
"(0) has disciplinary or school suspension prob-
1,, 418.50..113
3
34
28
1 propriate, to provide the following services to school dropouts
2 and out-of-school youth:
3 "(1) specialized outreach arrangements;
4 "(2) basic skills training, including tutoring;
5 "(3) occupational skills training, work experience,
6 limited internships in the private-for-profit sector, and
7 job development and placement assistance;
8 "(4) work readiness and life skills training, coun-
9 seling, mentoring, parenting education, and post-pro-
10 gram follow-up services; and
11 "(5) supportive services necessary to enable indi-
12 viduals to participate in the program.
13 "(e) Programs under this part may be conducted during
14 the summer months or on a year-round, full-time basis, pro-
15 vided no more than 40 percent of the funds available for this
16 part shall be used for summer youth programs.".
17 SEC. II. LIMITATIONS.
18 (a) IN GENERAL.Section 254(a, is amended to read
19 as follows:
20 "(a) Programs under this part may be conducted on a
21 year-round, full-time basis or during the summer months.".
22 (b) SPECIAL CONSIDERATION.Section 254(b) of the
23 Act is amended by-
24 (1) inserting "(1)" after the subsection designa-
25 tion;
of Off 643.18 .
39
35
29
1 (2) striking "Except as provided in subsection (c)
2 individuals" and inserting in lieu thereof "Individuals";
3 and
4 (3) inserting the following new paragraphs after
5 paragraph (1) (as redesignated in paragraph (1)):
6 "(2) Special consideration shall be given to economically
7 disadvantaged youth who experience severe disadvantages,
8 such as-
9 "(A) school dropouts;
10 "(B) students with poor academic and attendance
11 records;
12 "(0) students who are eligible for or receive serv-
13 ices under the National School Lunch Act or chapter 1
14 of title 1 of the Element.^xy and Secondary Education
15 Act of 1965;
16 "(D) pregnant or parenting teens;
17 "(E) handicapped youth;
18 "(F) limited-English proficient students;
19 "(G) recipients or members of families who are
20 receiving public assistance; or
21 "(H) juvenile and other youth offenders.
22 "(3)(A) Up to 10 percent of all participants in the pro-
23 grams assisted under this part may be individuals who are
24 not economically disadvantaged if such individuals are in 2 or
25 more of the classes of individuals described in paragraph (2).
68 SO IS
40
36
30
1 "(B) In addition to the individuals described in subpara-
2 graph (A), an additional 5 percent of all participants in the
3 programs assisted under this part may be individuals who are
4 not economically disadvantaged if-
5 "(i) such individuals are in 2 or more of the
6 classes of individuals described in paragraph (2); and
7 "(ii) the plan for inclusion of such individuals has
8 been set forth in the job training plan pursuant to sec-
9 tion 104 and has been approved by the Governor pur-
10 suant to section 105.".
11 (c) YEAR-ROUND ELIGIBILITY. Section 254(c) of the
12 Act is amended by-
13 (1) inserting "(1)" after the subsection designa-
14 tion;
15 (2) striking "summer", and inserting after "part"
16 a comma and "with priority being given to those indi-
17 viduals who do not meet established levels of academic
18 achievement and who plan to enter the full-time labor
19 market upon leaving school"; and
20 (3) inserting the following paragraph after para-
21 graph (1) (as redesignated in paragraph (1)):
22 "(2) Individuals eligible to participate in year-round pro-
23 grams under this part are-
24 "(A) youth who are aged 16 through 24;
25 "(B) economically disadvantaged youth; and
18 US 18
37
31
1 "(0) youth who are deficient in basic skills.".
2 SEC. 12. REQUIREMENTS FOR YEAR-ROUND PROGRAMS.
3 (a) IN GENERAL.Title II of the Act is amended-
4 (1) by redesignating section 255 as section 256;
5 and
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 and
(2) by adding after section 254 the following new
section:
"REQUIREMENTS FOR YEAR-ROUND PROGRAMS
"SEC. 255. (a) A service delivery area operating a year-
round program under this part shall
"(1) include in the job training plan a description
of the year-round program including
"(A) goals and objectives to be attained,
"(B) activities and services to be provided,
"(0) linkages established with other local
agencies to provide services under the year-round
program, and
"(D) service strategies of demonstrated effec-
tiveness on which the provision of services will be
based or, where new strategies are undertaken,
the design of the program that will allow for rig-
orous and objective evaluation of the new strate-
gies;
"(2) provide to each participant
"(A) the development of a service strategy;
IS 543 IS
4,2
38
32
1 "(B) basic skills assistance; and
2 "(3) establish linkages with local educational
3 agencies that include, but are not limited to-
4 "(A) arrangements to ensure that the pro-
5 gram assisted under this section supplements ex-
6 fisting programs provided by local education agen-
7 cies to in-school youth;
8 "(B) arrangements to ensure that the pro-
9 gram assisted under this section utilizes existing
10 services provided by local education agencies to
11 out-of-school youth to the extent possible;
12 "(0) agreements providing that, where feasi-
13 ble, the local educational agencies shall notify the
14 program assisted under this section when a youth
15 drops out of the school system;
16 "(D) arrangements for obtaining information
17 relating to the literacy levels of participants; and
18 "(E) other appropriate linkages which en-
19 hance the provision of services assisted under this
20 section.
21 The private industry council in each service delivery area
22 operating a year-round program under this part may establish
23 linkages with local service agencies, community organiza-
24 tions, business and labor organizations, volunteer groups
25 working with at-risk youth, parents and family members, ju-
1118 543 IS
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
39
33
venile justice systems, and other training, education, employ-
ment, and social service programs, including programs con-
ducted under part A of title II.
"(b) LIMITATION.Not more than 15 percent of the
funds available for year-round programs assisted under this
part may be used to pay the costs of administration.".
7 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.The table of contents in
8 part B of title II of the Act is ameLded-
9 (1) by redesignating the item relating to section
10 255 as section 256; and
11 (2) by adding the following after section 254:
"Sec. 255. Requirements for year-round programs.".
12 SEC. 13. EXEMPLARY YOUTH PROGRAMS.
13 Part B of title D. of the Act is amended by inserting the
14 following new section after section 256 (as amended in see -
15 tion 12(a)(1) of this Act):
16 "EXEMPLARY YOUTH PROORtaiS
17 "SEC. 41". (a) In addition to the services for youth
18 which may be available in accordance with this part, the job
19 training plan may, at the option of those responsible for its
20 preparation, eiect to include one or more of the exemplary
21 youth programs described in subsections (b) through (e) of
22 this section, each of which may be modified by the plan to
23 accommodate local conditions.
24 "(b)(1) The job training plan may provide for the con-
25 duct of a 'basic skills for employment program' for eligible
40
34
1 youth who have not attained a high school diploma or who
2 have basic skills deficiencies despite the attainment of 3 di-
3 ploma, with priority given to high school dropouts.
4 "(2) The basic skills for employment programs may pro-
5 vide for the maintenance of a network of learning centers
6 offering individualized or group instruction in convenient lo-
7 cations, such as schools, neighborhood organizations, librar-
8 ies, and other rites, including mobile vans in rural areas.
9 "(3) The curricula provided by such network shall be
10 designed to prepare the student to meet State and locally
11 determined general education diploma and basic skills compe-
12 tency requirements.
13 "(4) For purposes of this section, priority shall be given
14 in the selection of service providers to previously funded in-
15 school and community based organization projects which are
16 both cost-effective and of demonstrated success, and which
17 otherwise meet the criteria of this Act.
18 "(c)(1) The job training plan may provide for the con-
19 duct of a 'preemployment skills training program' for youth,
20 and individuals aged 14 and 15, with priority being given to
21 those individuals who do not meet established levels of aca-
22 demic achievement and who plan to enter the full-time labor
23 market upon leaving school.
24 "(2) The preemployment skill training program may
25 provide youth up to 200 hours of instruction and activities.
,4"
41
35
1 "(3) The instruction and activities may include-
2 "(A) assessment, testing, and counseling;
3 "(B) occupational career and vocational explore,-
4 tion;
5 "(C) job search assistance;
6 "(D) job holding and survival skills training;
7 "(E) basic life skills training;
8 "(F) remedial education;
9 "(G) labor market information; and
10 "(II) job-seeking skills training.
11 "(d)(1) The job training plan may provide for the con-
12 duct of an 'entry employment experience program' for youth
13 who-
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
"(A) have completed preemployment skills train-
ing or its equivalent;
"(B) have rot recently held a regular part-time or
summer job fa. more than 250 hours of paid employ-
ment, except that this paragraph may be waived in ac-
cordance with criteria established in the job training
plan; and
"(C) are enrolled in a secondary school or an in-
stitution offering a certified high school equivalency
program and are meeting or have met the minimum
academic and attendance requirements of that school or
. 08 548 ,I13
42
36
1 education program during the current or most recent
2 term,
3 with priority given to youth who do not plan to continue im
4 to postsecondary education.
5 "(2) Entry employment experiences may be up to 20
6 hours weekly during the school year or full time during the
7 summer and holidays, for a total of not to exceed 500 hours
8 of entry employment experience for any individual. Suoh ex-
9 periences shall be appropriately supervised, including the
10 maintenance of standards of attendance and worksite per-
11 formance.
12 "(3) Entry employment experiences may be one of the
13 following types:
14 "(A) Full-time employment opportunities in public
15 and private nonprofit agencies during the summer and
16 on a part-time basis in combination with education and
17 training activities. These jobs shall provide community
18 improvement services that complement local expendi-
19 tures.
20 "(B) Tryout employment at private for-profit
21 worksites, or at public and private nonprofit worksites
22 when private for-profit worksites are not available.
23 Compensation in lieu of wages for tryout employment
24 shall be paid by the grant recipient, but the length of
25 any assignment to a tryout employment position shall
08 US IS
43
37
1 not exceed 250 hours Tryout employment positions
2 shall be ones for which participants would not usually
3 be hired (because of lack of experience or other bar-
4 riers to employment), and vacancies in such positions
5 may not be refilled if the previous participant complet-
6 ed the tryout employment but was not hired by the
7 employer.
8 "(0) Cooperative education programs to coordi-
9 nave educational programs with work in the private
10 sector.
11 "(e)(1) The job training plan may provide for the con-
12 duct of a `school-to-work transition assistance program' for
13 youth who are-
14 "(A) high school seniors who plan to enter the
15 full-time labor market upon graduation, with priority to
16 seniors in high schools having a predominance of stu-
17 dents from families with incomes below 70 percent of
18 the lower living standard income level; and
19 "(B) dropouts, with followup as immediately as
20 possible after lea-ing school.
21 "(2) Transition services include-
22 "(A) provision of Pnupational information;
23 "(B) short-duration job search assistance;
24 "(0) job clubs;
25 "(D) placement and j:fb development; and
108 542 IS
44
38
1 "(E) followup.
2 "(3) Seniors and dropouts who are eligible for and in
3 need of training activities may be provided information and,
4 where appropriate, referred to-
5 "(A) preemployment skills training, entry employ-
6 ment experience, and remedial education and basic
7 skills training;
8 "(B) adult training activities; and
9 "(C) the Job Corps.".
10 (c) TECILNICAL AMENDMENT. The table of contents in
11 part B of title 11 of the Act is amended by adding the follow-
12 ing after section 256 of the Act (as amended by section
13 12(b)):
"See. 257. Exemplary youth programs.".
14 SEC. 258. REPLICATION OF SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS.
15 (a) IN GENERAL.Part B of title II of the Act is
16 amended by inserting the following new section after section
17 257 of the Act (as amended by section 13(b)):
18 "(a) REPLICATION PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.From
19 funds appropriated pursuant to section 3(b) of the Act, the
20 Secretary shall, in consultation with the expert review panel
21 appointed pursuant to subsection (c), make grants to national
22 or regional public or private nonprofit organizations which
23 meet the requirements of this section for the provision of
24 technical assistance, and to States and seviee delivery areas
25 for costs associated with the development and operation of
08 618 18
'1)./ 49
45
39
1 model programs approved by the Secretary in accordance
2 with the provisions of this section.
3 "(b) APPROPRIATIONS FORMULA.-(1) If the amount
4 appropriated under section 3(b) for any fiscal year exceeds
5 $1,424,000,000 but does not exceed $1,524,000,000 then
6 the lesser of-
7 "(A) the amount of such excess, or
8 "(B) $10,000,000,
9 shall be used for the demonstration programs authorized by10 this part.
11 "(2) If the amount appropriated in any fiscal year ex-
12 ceeds $1,524,000,000 then the lesser of-13 "(A) the amount of such Jxcess, or14 "(B) $20,000,000,
15 shall be used for the demonstration programs authorized by16 this part.
17 "(3) This paragraph shall apply notwithstanding any
18 other provision of law enacted after the date of.enactment of19 this Act, including any appropriations Act, unless this sub-
20 section is specifically cited in such provision of law.
21 "(c) REVIEW PANEL. -(1) The Secretary shall appoint
22 a review panel of recognized experts in the evaluation of em-
23 ployment and training programs for economically disadvan-
24 taged youth. Such panel &all select and designate model pro-
25 grams pursuant to the provisions of this section. The review
OS CAS IS
t 50 )
46
40
1 panel shall meet at least once each year to carry out the
2 responsibilities described in this section. No member of such
8 panel shall have a direct financial interest in or affiliation
4 with a potential recipient of funds under the program author-
5 ized by this section.
6 "(2) The review panel shall select and designate model
7 programs and make recommendations to the Secretary re-
8 garding those programs the review panel deems likely to be
9 successful in improving the employment prospects of eco-
10 nomically disadvantaged youth and which are replicable on a
11 large scale. In selecting such programs the review panel shall
12 consider-
13 "(A) the size and scope of the program;
14 "(B) the length of time the program has been op-
15 erating;
16 "(0) the nature and reliability of measurable out-
17 comes for the program;
18 "(D) the capacity of the sponsoring national or re-
19 gional organization to provide the technical assistance
20 necessary for States and local communities to replicate
21 the prgram; and
22 "(E) the likelihood the program will be successful
23 in diverse economic, geographic, and cultural environ-
24 ments.
08 64S IS 51
47
41
1 "(3) Each member of the review panel who is not an
2 officer or employee of the United States shall be compensated
3 at a rate established by the review panel not to exceed the
4 daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for
5 grade GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 6332 of
6 title 5, United States Code, for each day (including travel-
7 time) during which such member is engaged in the actual
8 performance of duties as a member of the review panel. Each
9 member of the review panel who is an officer or employee of
10 the United States shall receive no additi-41 compensation.
11 "(d) SPECIAL CONSIDERATION.--.De review board12 shall give special consideration to programs that have the
13 demonstrated ability to integrate or coordinate services
14 through collaborative efforts with other service providers in
15 the areas of basic skills instruction, occupational, and pre-
16 employment and work maturity training programs.
17 "(e) CRITERIA FOR MODEL PROGRAM8.The review
18 panel shall consider any program for designation as a model
19 program if such program-
20 "(1) is designed to improve the employment pros-21 pects of economically disadvantaged youth;
22 "(2) is sponsored or operated by a national or re-
23 gional public or private nonprofit organization with the24 capacity to provide the technical assistance necessary
Is 54.3 18
0a- 0
0
48
42
1 to enable States and local communities to implement
2 the program;
3 "(3) has demonstrated reasonable evidence of sue-
4 cess, as reflected in measurable outcomes related to
5 stated program goals and objectives; and
6 "(4) has operated on a scale sufficient to demon-
7 strate that the program has the potential to be repli-
8 cated across a wide range of sites and successfully
9 serve large numbers of economically disadvantaged
10 youth.
11 "(1) APPLICATION8.Each public or private nonprofit
12 organization, State, or service delivery area desiring to re-
13 ceive a grant under this Act shall submit an application to
14 the Secretary slt such time, in such manner, and containing
15 or accompanied by such information as the Secretary may
16 reasonably require. Each such application shall-
17 "(1) describe the activities and services for which
18 assistance is sought; and
19 "(2) contain such information and assurances as
20 the Secretary may require to ensure compliance with
21 the provisions of this Act.
22 "(g) GRANT LIMITATION8.(1) In any 3-year period
23 the Secretary shall not approve grants for the same replica -
24. 4
tion activities in more than 10 `"fates or communities. During1
25 this 3-year period, the results of such limited replication ef-
08 545 IS
5°0
49
43
I forts 14,811 be carefully evaluated and examined by the review
2 panel thich shall submit recommendations to the Secretory
3 regaraMg the advisability of replicating the model program in
4 more than 10 States or communities or for longer than 3
5 years. On the basis of such recommendations, the Secretary
6 shall have authority to replicate such programs in more than
7 10 communities or for longer than 3 years.
8 "(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2),9 the Secretary may, upon recommendation of the review
10 panel, waive the limitation set forth in paragraph (1) if imme-
11 diate replication efforts on a larger scale is warranted by ex-
12 topsive evaluation of the program prior to its designu'ion as a
13 model program pursuant to the provisions of this para-14 graph.".
15 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.The table of contents in
16 part B of the Act is amended by adding the following after
17 section 257 (as amendo4 in section 13(c)(2)):
"Sec. 258. Replication of successful progratzs.".
18 SEC. 14. FAIR CHANCE YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
19 CHALLENGE GRANT.
20 (a) IN GENERAL.---Title IV of the Act is amended by
21 adding at the end thereof the following new part, H:
Ss US 15
50
44
1 "PART H-PAIR CHANCE IOUTH OPPORTUNITY
2 CHALLENGE GRANT
3 "STATE ALLOTMENT
4 "SEC. 491. (a)(1) The Secretary sell allot for each
5 fiscal year to each State which has submitted a plan under
6 section 493 a ortion of the funds appropriated under the
7 authority of section 499 for such fiscal yeas that bears the
8 same relationship to the total amount of such funds as the
9 youth population of such State bears to the total youth popu-
10 lation of the United States.
11 "(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the
12 amount allotted to each Sate under paragraph (1) for each
13 fiscal year shall equal or exceed $250,000.
14 "(B) The amount allotted under paragraph (1) for each
15 fiscal year to each of the following shall equal or exceed
16 $125,000: the United States Virgin Islands, the Common-
17 wealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the North-
18 ern Mariana Islands, the Marshall Islands, the Federated
19 States of Micronesia, and Palau.
20 "(b)(1) In any fiscal year the amount of fund:: allotted to
21 a State which can be carried over to the fiscal year following
22 the fiscal year for which the determination is made may not
23 exceed 10 percent of the amount of funds allotted to such
24 State for the year for which such determination is made.
08 543 18 55
45
1 "(2) The total amount of funds allotted to a State which
2 can be carried forward to the fiscal year following the fiscal
3 year for which the determination is made may r '.xceed 20
4 percent of the amount of funds allotted to such ,sate for the
5 year for which such determination is made.
6 "(3) In each fiscal year the Governor shall deduct the
7 amount of funds carried over by a State in excess of the
8 limitations imposed by paragraphs (1) and (2) from the allot-
9 ment for such State for the fiscal year for which the determi-
10 nation is made. Any funds deducted pursuant to this para-
11 graph shall be available for reallocation.
12 "(4) The Secretary shall reallot any funds appropriated
13 for a fiscal year under the authority of section 499 that have
14 not been obligated before July 1 of the succeeding fiscal year
15 among those States that have obligated before such date all
16 of such funds allotted to those States. The portion of such
17 funds reallotted to each of such States shall bear the same
18 relationship to the total amount of such funds as the youth
19 population of such State bears to the youth population of
20 such States.
2] "(c) In awarding grants under this part the State22 agency shall give priority to consortia serving demonstration
23 target areas.with high proportions of-24 "(1) economically disadvantaged youth;
25 "(2) school dropouts;
OS 643 IS
46
1 "(3) students who are eligible for school lunch or
2 breakfast or education services under chapter 1 of title
3 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965;
4 "(4) limited-English proficient students; or
5 "(5) juvenile and other youth offenders.
6 "(d) The Secretary shall provide for the active consulta-
7 tion and participation of the Secretary of Education in the
8 promulgation of regulations necessary to carry out the provi-
9 sions of this part.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 "(2) provide for the appointment of an advisory
26 group by the Gos ernor (or the designation of an exist-
543 IS
"GRANTS
"SEC. 492. The funds allotted to each State under sec-
tion 491 shall be used by the State agency to provide grants
to eligible consortium in the State to pay not more than 50
percent of the costs incurred by such consortium in providing
comprehensive education, training, and support services and
programs in demonstration target areas to youth living within
such demonstration target areas who seek such opportunities.
"STATE PLAN
"SEC. 493. The Governor of each State shall submit a
5-year plan to the Secretary for carrying out the provisions
.of this part. Each such plan shall
"(1) designate the State agency responsible for
supervising the preparation and administration of the
plan;
53
47
1 ing State coordinating body which is broadly represent-
2 ative of the education and training resources of the
3 State, including, but not limited to, the State Job4 Training Coordinf ing Council) to partiL spate in the de-
5 velopment and -e7iew of the State's plan, including
6 State officials for education, vocational-technical educe -
7 tion, employment and training, and social services, as
8 well as representatives of business, industry, labor, and
9 community-based agencies offering alternative educe-
10 tion or training programs;
11 "(3) provide for the designation of eligible demon-
12 stration target areas within each State which are char-
13 acterized by chronically low levels of economic activity
14 of a deteriorating economic base which has caused
15 such adverse effects as-
16 "(A) a concentration of unemployed youth
17 which substantially exceeds the average rate of
18 unemployment among youth.in the State, or
19 "(B) a large concentration of low-income
20 youth and families;
21 "(4) provide assurances that the size and scope of
22 the demonstration target area to be served as part of
23 any app aved application is calculated to provide
24 access to education, training, and support services to
s z43 IS
art'
-N MINN
, 54
48
1 youth living in such target area who seeks such oppor-
2 tunities;
3 "(5) provide assurance that funds provided under
4 this part will be used to supplement, and not supplant,
5 funding from other local, State, and Federal sources
6 available to youth in demonstration target areas;
7 "(6) provide assurances that program activities
8 funded under this part are coordinated with programs
9 in the State opeizted under the Carl D. Perkins Voca-
10 tional Education Act, the Adult Education Act, the El-
11 ementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the
12 Higher Education Act of 1965, the Rehabilitation
13 Services Act of 1973, the Job Training Partnerahip
14 Act, the Family Support Act, and with any other rele-
15 vent employment, training, and education programs
16 available in the State;
17 "(7) provide assurances of an opportunity for
18 review and comment of any application under this part
19 by the State Job Training Coordinating Council or the
20 local private industry councils) serving the demotic, .-
21 tion target area prior to approval by the State;
22 "(8) provide for the evaluation of the Fair Chance
23 Youth Opportunity Challenge Grant program to deter-
24 mine whether
18 543 Li /5 9
49
1 "(A) the increased education, training, coun-
2 seling, career development, and other support3 services guaralteed to youth living in demonstra-
4 tion target areas result in increased rates of en-5 rollment, retention, and completion, And
6 "(B) the extent to which current programs
7 available to youth in the demonstration target8 areas are of sufficient numlyar, variety, and quality
9 to meet demand; and
10 "(9) provide such information in such form as the
11 Secretary may reasonably require to enable the Secre-
12 tary to aggregate and analyze data necessary for the
13 completion of the national evaluation of programs
funded under this part pursuant to section 497.
15 "ELIGIBLE CONSORTIA
16 "SEC. 494. (a)(1) Eligible consortia applying for demon-
17 stration grants under this part must be broadly representative
18 of the education and training providers of their community.
19 Each such aligible consortia shall consist of-20 "(A) representatives of business, industry, and21 labor;
22 "(B) community-based organizations, including
23 youth-serving organize >ns;
24 "(0) State and local education agencies, including
25 area vocational schools;
OS S43 .
GO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 through (F) of parkurraph (1). Such existing entities may
12 include-
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 part.
56
50
"(D) State and local employment and training
agencies;
"(E) institutions of postsecondary education, in-
cluding community colleges and vocationCetechnical
education institutes; and
"(F) residents of demonstration target areas who
are typical of youth to be served under this part.
"(2) An eligible consortia may consist of any existing
entity including any community organization or group which
meets the representation requirements of subparagraphs (A)
"(A) local education entities, districts, or area-
wide councils;
"(B) community education districts;
"(C) private industry councils;
"(D) youth coordinating councils;
"(E) county or regional economic development au-
thorities; or
"(F) other appropriate entities which are broadly
representative of the public and private education and
training resources of the entire community and demon-
strate the capacity to carry out the provisions of this
p9, 43 ift. 61
57
51
1 "(b) The State agency designated by the Governor pur-
2 suant to section 493(a) shall award at least 1 and not more
3 than 2 eligible consortia assistance under this Act.
4 "(c) Eligible consortia that already have programs de-
5 sighed to integrate services available to youth and increase
6 acce.:s to programs for youth consistent with the provisions of
7 this part are encouraged to apply to the State agency for
8 assistance under this Act in order to strengthen, enhance,
9 expand, and evaluate such programs and services to both col-
10 lege-bound and non-college-bound youth.
11 "(d) States shall encourage consortia to make use of the
12 resources, expertise, and commitment of both formal institu-
13 tions of education, such as colleges, universities, vocational
14 and technical schools and institutes, and community colleges,
15 as well as such service providers as-
16 "(1) community-based organizations providing vo-
17 cational skills, literacy, remedial education, and general
18 equivalency preparation, including those serving youth19 with limited English proficiency;
20 "(2) youth conservation and human service corps;21 "(3) Job Corps centers;
22 "(4) apprenticeship programs; and
23 "(5) projects and programs funded under the Job24 Training Partnership Act.
e 8 $ 9 i f 3, ,
6c),
A
52
1 "APPLICATION
2 "SEC. 495. (a) Any eligible consortium desiring to re-
3 ceive a demonstration grant under this part shall submit an
4 application to the State agency at such time, in such manner,
5 and containing or accompanied by such information as the
6 State agency may reasonably require. Each such application
7 shall -
8 "(1) contain a five-year plan for the development
9 and implementation of activities under this part;
10 "(2) demonstrate a means to ensure that all youth
11 in a demonstration target area have access to a
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
10,...
comprehensive range of education and training oppor-
tunities;
"(3) containing a description of resources available
in a demonstration target area from private, local gov-
ernment, State, and Federal sources which will be used
in the demonstration program;
"(4) Provide an estimate of the expected number
of youth to be served and the total cost thereof;
"(5) include an estimate of funds required to
ensure access to appropriate education, training, and
22 support services for all youth who seek such oppor-
23 tunities;
24 "(6) provide outreach, recruitment, and motiva-
25 tional mechanisms to encourage youth within the dem-
01.0:143) IS
69'
59
53
1 onstration target. area to pursue appropriate education
2 and training;
3 "(7) provide a case management and career devel-
4 opment system to ensure each youth a well-trained and
5 committed career counselor who offers continuous as-
6 sessment, career information, counseling, placement,
7 follow-up, and advocacy assistance to all participating
8 youth;
9 "(8) include a cooperative agreement among10 youth-serving organizations and public and private11 agencies within the consortium designed to ensure co-12 ordination, pool resources, avoid duplication, and,
13 where feasible, tap the energies and talents of commu-
14 nity volunteers of all ages, including adult mentors and
15 students;
16 "(9) provide for the maintenance of sued informa-
17 tion as may be required by the State and Secretary,18 including data necessary for the national evaluation de-
19 scribed in section 497, to ensure that au& State and20 its demonstration grant recipients are complying with21 the requirements of this part;
22 "(10) demonstrate that varied sources of funding
23 will be fully utilized and effectively coordinated within
24 the demonstration target area;
OS StO IS .
60
54
1 "(11) wher6 appropriate, provide for the sharing
2 of facilities, equipment, and resource materials among
3 consortia members;
4 "(12) establish outcomes for participating youth
5 and specify accountability measures for assessing such
6 outcomes; and
7 "(13) demonstrate the capability to establish a co-
8 ordinated and comprehensive program which serves the
9 broadest possible range of youth interests and needs,
10 and simultaneously mobilizes the diverse range of edu-
11 cation and training providers in the geographic area.
12 "(b) iny application approved by the State agency for
18 the purposes of this part shall be broad enough to support
14
15
13
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
vocational and technical education, skills training, academic
remediation, work experience, counseling, career develop-
ment, and other support services, and shall seex to encourage
£.nd increase enrollment in both two- and four-year colleges
leading to an associate or baccalaureate degree.
"us; J.: FUNDS, NON-FEDERAL SHARE
"SEC. 496. (a)(1) No funds provided under this part
shall be used by local education agencies to provide educa-
tional services to youth enrolled in secondary schools during
regular school hours.
"(2) No funds under this part shall be .tsed for student
financial assistance, except to the extent permitted by regula-
tions promulgated by the Secretary. Any such regulations
OS 649 IS
61
55
1 shall req..2. documentation of a finding that the lack of such
2 funds prohibits access to needed education or training and
3 that existing Federal, State, and local student financial aid
4 available to youth within the demonstration target area has
5 been fully utilized.
6 "(b) The portion of the costs described in section 492(a)
7 that are not paid by a grant provided under that section shall
8 be paid in cash and may include funds from other Federal,
9 State, or local sources including private sector contributions.
10 "(c) Not more than 5 percent of funds allotted to each
11 State in any fiscal year under this section 491 may be ex-
12 pended for administrative costs incurred by the State in car-
13 rying out the program established under this part.
14 "EVALUATION
15 "SEc. 497. (a) The Secretary shall provide a thorough,
16 independent evaluation of the various approaches taken by
17 the States in different demonstration programs to assess the
18 outcomes of youth participating in such programs. Evaluation
19 measure^ may include-
20 "(1) enrollment, retention, and completion rates;
21 "(2) high school graduation rates;
22 "(3) avoidance of anti-social behavior and rilf-de-
23 structive behavior;
24 "(4) subsequent employment;
25 "(5) continued pursuit of advanced education and
26 training;
18 643 18
62
56
1 "(6) admission into four-year colleges and univer-
2 sities; or
3 "(7) admission into the armed forces, and similar
4 measures.
5 "(b) The Secretary shall develop a report detailing the
6 results of the independent evaluation and submit such report
7 to the President and the Congress no later than December
8 31, 1994, along with an analysis of expenditures made, re-
9 sults achieved, and problems in the operations and coordina-
10 tion of programs funded under this part. Such report should
11 summarize findings concerning-
12 "(1) whether, if a combination of education, train-
13 ing, career guidance, counseling, and other support
14 services were made to youth living in designated geo-
15 graphic target areas, the rates of student enrollment,
16 retention, and completion would increase;
17 "(2) the extent to which euabnt programs are suf-
18 ficient in number, variety, and quality to meet demand;
19 and
20 "(3) the feasibility of eater ling access to compre-
21 hensive education, training and support services and
22 programs required under this part to all areas of the
23 nation, including possible approaches to the incremen-
24 tal extension 1 such access over time.
25 "DEFINITIONS
26 "SEC. 498. As used in this part:
03 SO Is
6 7
63
57
1 "(1) The term 'demonstration target area' means
2 a geographic area described in section 493 (3) and (4)
3 that is designated under '.: glen submitted under section
4 493.
5 "(2) The term 'State agency' means the State
6 agency designated by the Governor of each State re-
7 sponsible for supervising and the preparation and ad-
8 ministraion of the State plan.
9 "AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
10 "SEC. 499. There are authorized to be appropriated to
11 carry out the provisions of this Act-
12 "(1) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1990,
13 "(2) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 1991,
14 "(3) $200,000,000 for fiscal !mai- 1992,
15 "(4) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 1993, and
16 "(5) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal
17 year 1994.".
18 (b) TECHNICAL AMELOMENT.Section 3(a)(1)(B) of
19 the Act (as amended by section 2 of this Act) is further
20 amendeA by adding "and part H" after "part B".
21 (c) TABLE OF CONTENTS.Th0 table of contents of the
22 Act is amended by adding after "See. 481. A ffirmative
23 action." the following:
"P.m IIYOUTH OPPORTUNITY DEMONSTRATION GRANT
"Sec. 491. State allotment."Sec. 492. Grants."Sec. 493. Stab plan.
SS SO 11
64
58
"Sec. 494. Eligible consortia."Sec. 495. Application."Sec. 496. Use offends; non-Federal share."Sec. 497. Evaluation."Sec. 498. Definiti3ns."Sec. 499. Authorization of appropriations.".
1 SEC. 15. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR EMPLOYMENT POLICY.
2 (a) NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR EMPLOYMENT
3 POLICY.Title IV of the Act is amended by striking part F.
4 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.(1) Sec-
5 tion 3(a)(2) of the Act is amended by striking "(E), (F), and
6 (G)" and inserting in lieu thereof "(E) and (G)".
7 (2) Section 3(a)(3) of the A l is amended to read as fol-
8 lows:
9 "(3) Of the amounts so reserved under paragraph (2), 5
10 percent shall be available for part C of title IV.".
11 (6) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.The table of contents of
12 the Act is amended by striking prt F and all that follows
13 through item relating to section 475.
0
,118.§,43 js
65
SUMMARY OF SENATOR SIMON'S BILLTHE JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AMENDMENTS OF 1989Mr.rch 8, 1989
The bill to amend the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) seeks tostrengthen employment and training assistance programs under JTFA andto improve the targeting of services to ecnomically disadvantagenadults and youth under the Title II. There are five major componentsto this bill: (1) a formula change to improve the targeting of fundsto the economically disadvantaged; (2) the creation of separate partsunder this title for programs to serve only adults over the age of 24in Title ILA and to serve youth aged 16 through 24 in year-roundprograms, (for youth who also need remedial education services), andsummer employment programs in Title IIB; (3) the creation of a new'Fair Chance: Youth Opportunity Challenge Grant' program to supportpartnership programs serving youth; (4) modifications to the presentcomposition of Private Industry Councils (PICs), while retaining therequirement tht the PIC Chair be a representative of the privatesector; and (5) an increase of $150 million in Title ZIA funds,(excluding those funds now spent on youth that are being transferredto the US youth pait), and $150 million in Title IIB funds overcurrent appropriations and IIA youth funds transferred into IIB.
Funding Formula Change
Presently, both Title ZIA, the Block Grant Program, and Title IIB, theSummer Youth Employment and Training Program, use the game formula forthe distribution of funds. The current formula is based on thefollowing numbers -- two-thirds on unemployment figures, and one-thirdon the number of economically disadvantaged individuals. while bothprograma are designedto serve economically disadvantaged youth andadults, only one-third of the formula is based on the number ofeconomically disadvantaged persons.
Problems with the current funding formula are particularly evident inthe Title IIB program for disadvantaged youth. Since manyeconomically disadvantaged youth may never have been employed, they donot appear on unemployment rolls and are not counted in unemploymentstatistics. Consequently, funds for this program are not targetedWhere the need is greatest, particularly in areas with largeconcentrations of disadvantaged youth.
This draft bill would create separate funding formulas for Title ZIAand IIB and would change the factors on which funds are allotted orre-distribute the percentage amounts for each of the existingcategories listed below. The state formula will have a 1004 held-armless, based on FY 1989 dollars, in both programs (the within stateformula will retain its 904 hold-harmless). In Title /IA, the stateand within state formula is identical and is based on the followingfactors:
70
66
2
* 50% of the amount shall be allotted on the basis of therelative excess number of unemployed adults (raised from 331/3% in current law); and
* 50% of the amount shall be allotted on the number ofeconomically disadvantaged adultslraised from 33 1/3%).
* Deletes the 33 1/3% factor currently allotted for areas ofsubstantial numbers of unemployed.
In Title II8 the state and within state formula is a two-tiered onebased on different formula factors. The state formula will have a180% hold harmless, based on FY 1989 dollars, and is as follows:
* 50% of the amount shall be allotted on the basis of the numberof economically disadvantaged youth in the state (raised from33 1/3% in current law);
* 25% of the amount shall be allotted on the basis of therelative number of lamployeALpuuth (lowered from 33 1/3%); and
* 25% of the amount shall be allotted on the basis of therelative number of economically disadvantaged youth xasiding in"areas with substantial numberl of economically disadvantagedyouth in each state as cor-sred to the total number of youthin all such areas in all stk.pes. (The term "Areas ofsubstantial numbers" means any area with sufficient size andscope to sustain a program in Title ITS and in which thepercentage of economically disadvantaged youth population aged16 through 24 is at least 20%. This factor is based on the"areas of substantial unemployment" concept used in the currentformula.)
The within state or service delivery area (SDA) formula in /Isis asfollows:
* 50% of the amount shall be allotted on the basis of the numberof economically disadvantaged youth in the SDA compared to thetotal number of economically disadvantaged youth in the state(raised from 33 1/3% in current law); and,
* 50% of the amou,:t shall be allotted on the basis of therelative number of economically disadvantaged youth restding in"areas with substantial numbers of economically disadvantagedYouth' in each SDA as compared to the total number of youth inall such SDAs in the state. (The term 'Areas of substantialnumbers' means any area with sufficient size and scope tosustain a program in Title ITS and in which the percentage ofeconomically disadvantaged yout in the population of youthaged 16 through 24 is at least 20%. Also, this factor is basedon the "areas of substantial unemployment' concept used in thecurrent formula.)
67
3
* The two factors based unemployment data are deleted fromthis foraula.
PIC Modification
The third major provision in this draft is a change in the presentcomposition of the private industry councils (PICs). Under currentlaw the PIC met be composed of a 'majority of private sectorrepresentatives and the Chair is selected from the private sector.This draft bill retains this language. Language is added, however, torequire a minimum representation of other groups on the PIC.
The additional PIC requirements include: a minimum of 17% cf the P/Cbe representatives from organized labor and community-basedorganizations, (with a stipulation added that when labor cannotadequately meet the labor rprresentation on the PIC then individualsfrom unorganized labor may be included on the council to complete thelabor representation); and, that a minimum of 25% of the PIC becomprised of representatives of all education agencies, rehabilitationagencies, public service and assistance agencies, economic developmentagencies, and public employment service agencies.
There are two primary reasons for the PIC modification. These are:(1) to ensure that a variety of groups are represented on the PIC inorder to improve coordination with community-based organizations(CEOs) and with public assistance agencies who will be working toimplement Welfare Reform; and (2) to ensure that a wider variety ofgroups are working to increase the support and funding for this.program.
Challenge Grant
The creation of a new 'Fair Chance: Youth Opportunities ChallengeGrant" program is based on a proposal described in a William T. GrantFoundation report, The Forgotten Ral.f: Pathways to Success forAmerica's Youth and Young Families. This program is designed tostimulate the development of an integrated approach for the education,training. and service needs Aor all youth. The program would fund oneto two demonstration programs in each state to target non-collegebound youth and offer the services necessary to enable youth toreadily access post-secondary education and training opportunities.Each program would be designed to include ne following:
* a cooperative agreement among youth-serving agencies and publicand private agencies to ensure coordination of resources and toavoid duplication;
* outreach and recruitment efforts to target 'harder-to-serve*youth;
* a case .eanagement system to assure ach participant the ongoingassessment, mentor. and counseling, placement, follow-up, andadvocacy needed for success; a: I
4
* a thorough, independent evaluation of the various programapproaches taken to measure their respective costs andeffectiveness.
This new "Challenge Grant' program shall be administered by theSecretary of Labor and authorized at $100 million Le FY 1990. Underthis program, the Secretary would pay 50% of the costs of each programon a matching grant basis. The remaining 50% match may include fundsfrom other federal, state, and local sources, including private sectorcontributions.
Additional Changes
There are a number of other changes included in this bill. The firstof these is an additional 'window' of eligibility for services tothose who are non-economically disadvantaged in the II3 program. This'window' may also be increased in both programs from the present 10%to 15% with state approval. This provision would allow non-economically disadvantaged individuals to receive Title ILA and IIBservices if they face multiple barriers to employment.
Secondly, the state set-aside in the I/A program is reduced from 22%of funds to 20% primarily by decreasing from 8% to 5% the set-asidefor education programa -- the remaining 3% would be passed. 'o theSDA level for long-term training, basic skills, and educationservices. In addition, 10% of funds in Title ILA may be reserved, atthe SDA's option, for experimental programs to provide services to' hard -to- serve' populations and would be exempt from performancestandards.
Finally, some of the performance standards have been amended toemphasize the need for improving basic skills and to emphasize longertern placements in unsubsidized employment. Also, the Secretary willbe required to develop separate performance standards for in-schooland out-of-school youth assisted under Title IIB. Additionally, SDAwill have the option of raising the present 15% cap on funds forsupportive services to a total of 25% with state approval.
73
69
A HILL TO AMEND TITLE IIOP THE JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT (JTPa)
Section by Section SummaryMarch 8, 1989
5ection 1 -- Short Titles Job TrainingPartnership Act (JTPA) Youth
Esployment Amendment of 1989.
Section 2 -- AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONSAmends Sec. 102 of the Act by deducting 40%'of IIA funds
mandated in -urrent law for services to eligible youth and transferingthat amount to Title IIS. (a) After transfering 40% of funds from 1IAto YID, an increase of an additional $150 million is authorized overthe remaining appropriations for a total authorization of $1.223billion.
(b) Authorizes in FY 1990 an increase of $150 million, inaddition to the 40% of funds from IIA, for a total authorization of$1.574 billion.
(c)(1) Insert new language that the total amount alloted to eachState under IIA and IIS shall ec .1 or exceed the amount alloted tosuch State for FT 1989.
(c)(2) Insert new language so that if the amounts appropriatedunder (a) and (b) above for y fiscal year are insufficient to meetthe requirements of paragr: ;1), the total amount alloted under HAand XIS shall be ratably re.uced.
1pution 3, -- DEFINITIONS
Section 4 -- PRIVATE T''JSTRY COUNCILS (PICs)1. Amends Sec. 102 of JTPA by inserting the word -majority'
instead of 51% for the private sector composition of a PIC andrequires that the remaining members of the PIC be composed of a 17%minimum of organized labor and community-based organizations (CEOs);and not less than 25% of the PIC membership shall consist ofrepresentatives of all eeucation industries in the service deliveryareas (SDAS), including rep - esentatives of institutions highereducation, at least one representative of a program or agencyproviding vocational rehabilitation to people with disabilities, andrepresentatives of public service agencies, including employmentservice, public assistance and economic development.
2. The Chairman of the council shall be selected from amongmembers of the council who are representatives of the private sector.
3. Education representatives shall be selected when nominated byregional educational agencies, vocational education and highereducation instituions, including private career schools, or generalorganizations of such schools and institutions within the SDA.
70
2
4. Labor representatives on PIC shall be selected whenrecommended by recognized State and local labor organizations.Unorganized labor may be : cluded if adequate labor representationcannot be met.
5. The remaining members of the council shall include additionalrepresentatives from all sectors represented on the council.
6. Phases in PIC change so-that no PIC will be in violation ofthis amendment until 3 years after enactment of this Act.
Section 5 -- PERFORMANCE STANDARDS1. Sec. 106 (b)(1) is amended by inserting language after 'title
II" su that the basic measure of performance for adult trainingprograms under title II is also the aquisition of basic educationalcompetency . The section is further amended by prescribing standardson the basis of factors which may include:
(A) squiring basic skills and workplace competencios includingraising the grade level of reading, writing, andcomputational skills, as well as the aquisition of a highschool diploma or a general equivalency diploma;
413) retention in unsubsidised employmint would be defined as aperiod greater than 6 months. The section retains additionalfactors such as placement in unsubsidized employment, anincrease in earnings, and AFDC reductions.
2. Sec. 106 (b)(4). Requires the Secretary to add newperformance standards for:
(A) hard-to-serve individuals (including handicappedindividuals), which should not emptasize cost efficiency ifit impairs the effectiveness of programs under JTPA, and oneset of performance standards for all other individualsreceiving JTPA assist.nce: and
(B) for in-school and out ,chool youth programs assisted underTitle /IB.
3. Sec. 106(b). Addn language that the Secretary shall notprescribe standards which penalize SDAs for using funds provided forsupport services pursuant to Sec. 108 (b)(2)(A)(iii).
Sec. 108 ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR SUPPORT SERVICES.Red ates subsections (c), (d), and (e) as subsections (d), (e),and , respectively and adds new language in (c).
(c) In addition to the 15% funds available under Sec. 108(b)(2)(A)(iii), an additional 10% of the funds available to SDA underTitle IIA may be expended for support services if such additionalsupport funds are spent providing eligible individuals ,,h longterm services, and the request is justified under the job-training plan pursuant to Sec. 104, and is approved by theGovernor.
5. Sec. 109 SERVICE DELIVERY AREA TRANSFER AND CONTRACT.
4 0
71
3
Adds section that allows SEAS to enter into contracts with oneanother to share the cost of wduce ng, training and placement ofindividuals in programs assisted under JTPA including the 'supportservices" provision. Each PGA shall be equally rewarded under theappropriate standasSs.
6. Sec. 110 CARRYOV ER AND REALLOCATION. Add the followingsection:
(a) CARRYOVER. (1,) In any Fiscal Year the amount of fendsallocated to a SEA which can be carried over to the following FY maynot exceed 10% of the funds allocated to the SEA for that previous FY;(2) :ILI tt.a total cumulative amount of funds which ma:, be .arrisd overeach year by an SDA may not et: sd 20%.
(b) SERVICE DELIVERY AREA REALLOCATION. net Governor may reallotfunds to SDAs which have expended 90% of its funds by the originalmethod used to allocate funds tmong SDAs within the State.
(c) STATE REALLOTMENT. The Secretary shall reallot funds fromstate carry-over funds exceeding 20% of such allotment for that priorprogram year to eligible states that are available for reallotment byusing the same method that was originally used to allocate amongeligible States pursuant to subsection (b) of this section.
Section 6 -- Title - Part A of Title II of the Act is amended to read"Adult Program.'
ALLOTMENT AND WITHIN STATE ALLOCATION.1. Amends Sec. 201(b)(1) by striking part (A) of the formula and
redesignating subparagraph (B) and (C) as (A) and (B). (A) Thischanges the 33 1/3% allotted on the basis of the relative excessnumber of unemployed individuals in etch state compared to the totalexcess number of unemployed individuals in all btates to 6(a; and
(B) changes the 33 1/3% alloted on the basis of the number ofeconomically disadvantaged individuals within the statecompared to the total number of economically d! advantaged inall states to 121.
2. Sec. 201 (b)(2)(B) is amended by adding language that noState shall be alloted more than 1108 of its previous yearallotment percentage unless waived by the Secretary.
3. Sec. 201 (b)(3)(B). Amends the definition of 'individual"for use only on the formula in counting the number of economicallydisadvantaged from all age groups to only those who are at least 21but not 21 years of age, and to the extent practicable, the Secretaryshall exclude college students and members of the armed services fromthe number of economically disadvantages individuals.
4. Sec. 202(a)(1). Changes the state set-asides from 22% to 20%and passes 80% of funds to the SDAs as described in Sec. 202(h)below.
rJ r-)
72
4
5. WITHIN STATE ALICCATIONG. Amends Sec. 202(a;(2) by changingthe percentagos of the formula for allocations tc the SDAs within eachstate to match the proposed formula used to distribute state funds intet..201(b)(1). The section is further amended by adding that the PICin each SDA may reserve an optional 10% of funds for experimentalprograming for nerving hard-to-serve eligible individuals. Thesefund.; will be exempt from performance standards. GAO will do anannesnent 2 yeale after enafinent.
6. Sec. 202(a)(3). Adds language that no SDA shall be allocatedmore than 110% of its allocation for the FY preceeding the FY forwhich the determination is made unless waived by the Governor; andretoins the 90% hold. harmless for the SDAn as in Sec. 252(f)(3).
7. Sec 2021a)(3). Amends the deffmition of "individual" forpurposes of the formula in counting the number of economicallydisadvantaA to those who -o at leant 25. but not 22. years of age.Adds language to exJlude, to the extent practicable, college studentsand memhcrs of the armed services from the number of economicallydisadvIntaged.
8. Sec. 202(b). Changes the 88 set-aside for education at thestate level to a 5% set-aside and passes the remaining 3% set-asidedirectly to the SDAs, however the SDAs must spent this funding onlong-term training, basic skills and esocational services. Anindependent evaluation will follow 1 year later. Out of the fundsreserved for the state, the grants awarded by the states must bematched with other federal, state, local and private funds.
9. Sec. 202(b)(21(B). Increases from 6 to 8% the amount offunds the Governor may award in incentive grants to SDAs, but addslanguage that the funds will be awarded on long term training orexceed performance standards relating to: raising basic skillscompetencies; serving hard-to-serve adults, and providing long termjob placement. Also, the amount of funds spent on older individualsis decreased from 3 to 2%.
SEC. 7 ELIG7BILITY FOR SERVICES.
1. Amends 203(a)(1) to direct SDAs to give special emphasis inproviding services to the hard-to-serve populations or individuals"most-in-need" of basic skills and employment training services. Alsorequires SDAs to test participant's reading and math skills and reviewemployment history. No test is required if standardized test wasadministered within previous year,
2. Sec. 203(a)(2) SPECIAL EMPHASIS. Retain language in Sec.203(a)(2) and increase the "window' of eligibility for non-economically _sadvantaged from 10% to 15% with state approval if theindividual J_ a 2 or more of the classes listed in this section.
3. Sec. 203(b) TRANS:ER,PROVISION. Amended by:
73
5
(1. striking out 'youth aud" in Sec. 203(b)(,) so that fundsshall be used to provide services to disadvantaged adults only;
(2) striking out second sentence of 203(b)(1) regarding the 40%of funds available for youth and transfers i' to IIB;
(3) adding language in Sec. 203(b)(2) so that SDA may transferadditional funds under this part to Title IIB for youth programs aslong as it is included in state plans.
(4) defining in Sec. 203(c) 'adult" as an individual who is aged25 or older inutead of 22.
(5) striking out .,. Sec. 204 "youth a d" so that services underthis sections will be available to adults only.
SEC. 8 -- PLACEMENT STUDY. Amend Sec. 205. GAO shall conduct a ea.),to determine how many and what percentage of adults remain in a jobwhich they were placed through programs assisted under this part forat least 9 months. Replaces 'Exemplary Youth Programs' title with"Placement Study" in the table of contents, and transfers Sec. 205 incurrent law to Sec. 257.
YOUTh EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM - TITLE IIB
1. Sec. 252(b) ALLOTMENT AND STATE ALLOCATIONS. Amends thissection by creating a separate formula in Title. IIB:
(A) Allots 50% of the formula on the basis of the relative numberof economically disadvantaged youth within the State comparedto the tot/ number of economically disadvantaged youth inall states;
(B) Allots 25% of the formula on the basis of the relative numberof unemployed youth in each State compared to totalnumber of unemployed youth in all States;
(C) Allots 25% of the formula on the basis the relative number ofthe economically disadvantaged youth residing in areas withsubstantial numbers of economically disadvantaged youth ineach 'tate as compared to the total number of sucheconomically disadvantaged youth in all such areas in allStates.
2. Sec. 252(d). Adds language tnat no state shall be allottedmore than 110% of its allotment percentage then in the precedingfiscal year, unless waived by the Secretary.
3. Sec. 252(e)(1). For this part (Title IIB) the term"economically disadvantaged youth' means an individual who is aged 16through 24 and who has, or whose family's income falls within thenoverty level. The number of economically disadvantaged youth shallexclude, to the extent practical, college students and memb,rs of thearmed forces; and
(2) The term area of substantial numbers ofeconomically disadvantaged youth" means any area with sufficient sizeand scope to sustain a program under IIB and in which the percentage
74
6
of economically disadvantaged youth between the age of 16 and 24 i8 atleast 20%.
4. WITHIN STATE ALLOCATIONS. Sec. 252(f)(1). Changes theformula factors for tllocations to the SDAs within each States
(A) Allots 50% on the basis of the relative number ofeconomically disadvantaged youth within each ODA compared tothe total number of economically disadvantaged youth in theState;
(D) Allots 50% on the basis of the relative number ofeconomically disadvantaged youth residing in 'areas withsubstantial numbers of economically disadvantaged youth' ineach SDA compared to the total number of such economicallydisadvantaged youth in all such ;;DAs in the State.
5. Sec. 252(f)(3). Retains the 90% and 110%each SDA.
§EC,10 -- USE OF FUNDS
1. Sec. 253(a)(3). Additional services maypayments necessary to participate in the program, and compensation forwork experience.
2. Sec. 253(c) ADDITIONAL SERVICES. (1) In addition to theservices set forth in Sec. 255(2), funds available for the year-roundprogram may be used to provide for in-school, dropout prone youth:
(A) Combined basic and life skills instruction and summerwork experience;
(B) Enriched basic skills and study skills training;(C) Supplemental school year activities;(D) Pre-employment, socialization and behavior skills
training; and(E) Supportive services.
Sec. 253(c)(2). T) term "dropout prone youth" is defined asa youth who:
(A) is 'at risk' of academic failure or of dropping out ofschool;
(B) has high absenteeism in addition to poor grades;(C) has disciplinary problems;(D) is a teen parent;(E) is of limited English proficiency;(F) is a juvenile offender; or(G) is educationally and economically disadvantaged.
Sec. 253(d). The following services may be provided toschool dropouts and out-of-school youth:
(1) Specialized outreach;(2) Basic skills training;
hold-harmless in
include needs-based
75
7
(3) Occupational skills training, job development andplacement assistance;
(4) Work readiness and life skills training, and post-programfollow-up; and
(5) Supportive services.
Sec. 253(e). These programs may be conducted during thesummer or on a year-round, full-time brmis, provided thesummer youth program receives no more An An of fundsavailable for this part.
EEC. 11 LIMITATIONS.
1. Sec. 254(a). Amended in order that programs under this partma:, be conducted on a year-round, full-time basis or during thesummer.
2. Sec. 254(b)(2) SI IAL CONSIDERATION. Among all of theeconomically disadventsged youth served under the IIB programs,special consideration shall be gi ,en to serving youth who experiencesevere disadvantages, such as:
(A) School dropouts;(B) Students with poor academic and attendance records;(C) Students who eligible to receive School Lunch or Chapter 1
services;(D) Pregnant or parenting teens;(E) Handicapped youth;(F) Limited-English proficient students;(G) Recipients of public assistance) or(H) Juvenile and other youth offenders.
3. Amends Sec. 254(b)(3)(A). Up to 10% of all participants inthe IIB program may be individuals who are not economicallydisadvantaged if such individuals ire in 2 or more of the classes ofindividuals Described in (b)(2) above.
4. Sec. 24(b)(3)(B;. An additional 5% over the 10% of allparticipants nay be individuals who are not economicall3 disadvantagedif the individuals: (i) qualify in 2 or more classes described in(b)(2) above and; (ii) the plan for inclusion of this additional 5% isin the plan pursuant to section 104 and has been approved by theGovernor.
5. Sec. 254(c)(2) YEAR-ROUND ELIGIBILITY. Individuals aged 14 -15 are eligible for youth programs with pr.ority given to those whofail to meet academic levels and who plan to enter the full-time labormarket upon leaving school.
6. Sec.254(c)(2). Amends the Act by requiring that individualseligible to participate in the year -round program are:
(A) youth who are aged 16 1. sgh 24 (optional services for 14and 15 year olds);
0
76
8
(B) economically disadvantaged youth; ana(C) youth who are deficient in basic skills.
$EC. 12 REQUIREMENTS FOR YEAR-ROUND PROGRAMS. Redesignates Sec. 255to Soc. 256 and adding the following new section after Sec. 254:
1. Sec. 255 (1). SDAs operating year -round programs under thissection shall include in their plans e description of the program,including:
(A) goals and objectives;(B) activities and services;(C) linkages established with other local agencies; and(D) service strategies of demonstrated effectiveness and the
design of the program.
2. Sec. 255(2). Adds language to provide each participant:
(A) development of a service strategy; and(B) basic skills assistance.
3. Sec. 255(3). In year-round programs, a SDA shall establishlinkages with local educational agencies (LEAs) to ensure thatprograms assisted supplement existing programs, utilize existingservices, obtain, whore feasible, notification when a youth drops outof the school system; and obtains information on the literacy level ofparticipants. Additionally, the PIC in each SDA shall establish witha variety of private, non-profit and public service agencies andvolunteer organizations, including programs conducted under Title IIA.
4. Not more tlan 15% of the funds available for programs assistedunder this part may be used for the costs of administration.
SEC. 13 EXEMPLARY YOUTH PROGRAMS. Tiltle IIB is amended byinserting Sec. 257 after Sec. 256. Section 205 is transfered to Sec.257 deleting the reference to Sec. 204 in .ne first sentence. InSection 257(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) strike 'education- and insert'basic skills.
Sec. 258. REPLICATION OF SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS. Creates the followingnew section, after Sec. 257:
1. Sec. 258(a). From funds appropriated pursuant to section3(b) of the Act the Secretary shall, in consultation with the expertreview panel pursuant to subsection (c), make grants to national orregional public or private nonprofit organizations if they meet thetechnical assistance requirements, and to States and SDAs for costsassociated with the development of model programs approved by theSecretary.
2. APPROPRIATIONS FORMULA. Sec 258(b)(1). If ",e amountappropriated under section 3(b) for any FY exceeds S1.424 billion butdoes not exceed 51.524 billion, then 510 million shall be used forthis demonstration program.
81
77
(2) If the amount appropriated in any FY exceeds$1.524 billion, then a total of $20 million, shall be used for
demonstration projects.
3. REVIEW PIXEL. Soc. 258(c)(1). The Secretary shall appointreview panel of exports to evaluate employment and training programsfor the economically disadvantaged youth, and select and designatemodel programs.
(2) In selecting such programs the panel shallconsider a variety of oblactivea related to tne potential for
success of the applicant's program to replicate model programs on znational or regional scale.
4. Sec. 258(d) SPECIAL WNSIDERATION. The panel shall givespecial consideration to programs that have the demonstrated abilityto integrate or coordinate services with other service producers inthe areas of basic skills instruction, occupational, and pre-employment and work maturity training programs.
5. Sec. 258(e) CRITERIA FOR MODEL PROGRAMS. The panel shallconsider any program for designation as a model program if suchprogram:
(1) is designed to improve the employment prospects ofeconomically disadvantaged youth;
(2) i2 sponsored o Crated by a national or regional public orprivate nonprox organization with the capacity to providethe technical as.,stance necessary to enable stater. andlocal communitieu to implement the program;
(3) has demonstrated reasonable evidence of success;
(4) has demonstrated its potential to be replicar-K1 across awide range of sites and may serve large numbest ofeconomically disadvantaged youth.
6. Sec. 258(f) APPLICATIONS. each public '31: private non - profitorganization, State, or SDA desiring to receive a grant shall submitan application describing assistance sought and assurances ofcompliance with provisions of this Act.
7. Sec.258(g) GRANT LIMITATIONS. (1) In any : year period theSecretary, recommended by the panel, sha'l not atprove grants for thesame replication activities in more then 10 states or communities.During this period, Cho results of nuch limited replication effortsshall be evaluated and examined by the review panel, which shallsubmit recommendations to the Secretary regarding the advisabiltty ofreplicating the model program in more than 10 states or communitiesfor longer than 3 years (The Secretary shall then have authority toreplicate such programs).
(2) The Secretary, upon the review panel's recommendation, maywaive the limitation if immediate replication on a larger scale iswarranted.
78
10
SEC 14. -- YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CHALLENGE. Amends Title IVby adding a new section in !ART H of Titls IV to authorize a FAIRCHANCE: YOUTH OPPORTUNITY CHALLENGE GRANT.
1. Sec. 491(a)(1) STATE ALLOEIENT. Secretary shall allot foreach FY, to each-State su'xitting a plan under Sec. 493, a portion ofthe funds under Soc. 499 for such FY that bears the same relationshipto the total amount of sun funds as the youth population of suchState bears to the total youth population in the U.S.
2. Sec. 491(a)(2). The amount alloted to each State shall equalor exceed $250,000 and shall equal or exceed $125,000 to U.S.territories.
3. Sec. 491(b)(1). In any FY the amount of funds allocated to aState which can be carried over to the following FY may not exceed 10%of the funds allocated to the Stat.ftlfor that previous FY; (1) and thetotal cumulative amount of funds which may be carried over each yearby an SDA may rot exceed 20%.
4. Sec. 491(c). State agencies shall award grants by givingpriority to programs:
(1) located in areas with a high number of economicallydisadvantaged youth;
(2) serving high-proportions or numbers of school dropouts;(3) serving students who are eligible for School Lunch or
Chapter 1 services;(4) serving limited-English proficient students; and(5) serving juvenile and other youth offenders.
5. Sec. 492 GP TS. The funds alloted to each State shall beused by the State Ay.ncy to provide grants to eligible consortium inthe State to pay more than 50% of the costs from comprehensiveeducation, training, and support services and programs indemonstration target areas to youth living within such target areas.
6. Sec. 493 STATE PLAN. The Governor of each State shall submita 5-year plan to the Secretary which shall:
(a) designate the state agency responsible for supervising theprei ation and administration of the plan;
(b) provide for the appointment of an advisory grcup by theGovernor, (or the designation of an existing State body whichis representative of the education and training resources ofthe bate, including, but not limited to, the State JobTri_ ng Coordinating Council) to participate in the
)pment and review of the State's plan, including Stateoift,ials for education, vocational-technical education,employment and training, social services, and representativesof business, industry, labor, and community-based agenciesoffering alternative education or training programs;
8
79
11
(c) provide for the designation of eligible demonstration targetareas which have chronically low levels of economic activityor a deteriorating economic base causing such adverse effectsas - a high concentration of unemployed youth whichsubstantially exceeds the average rate of unem7loyment amongyouth in the State, or a large concentration of low-incomeyouth families;
(d) provide assurances that the size and scope of thedemonstration target area is calculated to provide access toeducation, training, and support services to youth living insuch target areas;
provide assurance that funds will supplement and not supplantfunding from other local, state, and Federal sourcesavailable to youth in demonstration target areas;
provide assurances that program activities funded under thispart are coordinated with relevant employment, training, andeducation programs available in the State.
provide assurances of review and comment of any applicationby the State Job Training Coordinating Council or local PICs.
(h) provide for the evaluation of this program to determinewhetl:ar the increased education, training and other supportservices guaranteed to youth result in increased rates ofenrollment, retention and completion, and whether there are asufficient number, variety and quality of current programsavailable to youth to meet demand; and
(i) provide other reasonable information needed by the Secretary.
4. Sec. 494(a)(1). ELIGIBLE CONSORTIA. Eligible consortiaapplying for demonstaration grants must be broadly representative ofthe education and training providers of their community and shallconsist of:
(e)
(f)
(g)
(A) representatives of business, industry and labor;(B) CBOs, including youth-serving organizatiOns;(C) State and local education agencies, including area vocational
schools;(D) State and local employment training agencies;(E) institutions of postsecondary education, including community
colleges and vocational-technical education institutes; and(F) residents of demonstration target areas who are typical of
youth to be served under this part.
5. Sec. 494(a)(2). Any eligible consortia may consist of anyexisting entity including any community organization or group whichmeets the representation requirements of (A) through (F) of paragraph(1) above. Such exiating entities may include::
(A) local edletercLon entities, districts or area-wide councils;
80
12
(3) community education districts;(C) PICs;(0) youth coordinating councils;(E) county or regional economic development authorities; or(F) other appropriate entities which are broadly representative
of education and training resources of the community.
6. Soc. 494(b). The state agency designated by the Governor;shall award at least 1 and not more than 2 eligible consortia uncle::this part.
7. Sec. 494(c). Eligible consortia are encouraged to apply tothe State agency in order to strengthen, enhance,'expand and evaluatesuch programs and services to both college benuld and non-college boundyouth.
8. Sec. 494(3). States shall encourage consortia to make use ofreourcer., expertise and commitment of both formal institutions ofeducation as well as:
(a) CEOs;(b) youth conservation and human service corps;(c) Job Corps centers;(d) apprenticeship programs; and(e) projects and programs funded under the JIPA.
9. APPLICATION. Sec. 495(a). Any eligible consortium desiringto receive a dervatration grant for the demonstration target areashall submit an application to the State agency as the agency mayreasonably require. Each application shall:
(i) contain a 5-year plan for development and implementation ofactivities;
(ii) demonstrate that ali youth in the have access to acomprehensive range of education and training opportunities;
(iii) contain a description of resources available from private,local government, State and Federal sources;
(iv) estimate the expected number of youth to be served and itstotal cost;
(v) estimate thu funds required t» ensure access to. appropriateeducation, training and support services for all youth;
(vi) encourage youth to pursue appropriate education and trainingthrough outreach, recruitment, and motivational mechanisms;
(vii) provide a case management and career development system toensure each youth a well-trained and committed careercounselor;
81
13
(viii) include a cc-perative agreement among youtn-servingorganizatiors and agencies within the consortium designedto ensure , Jrdination;
(ix) provide for the maintenance of such information as may berequired by the State and Secretary, including datadescribed in section 497;
(x) demonstrate that varied sources of funding will be fullyutilized and effectively coordinated;
(xi) where appropriate, share facilities, equipment and resourcematerials;
(xii) establish outcomes and specify accountability measures forsuch outcomes; and
(xiii) demonstrate the capability to establish a coordinated and-comprehensive program which serves the broadest possiblerange of youth interest and needs, and mobilize thediverse range of education and training providers.
10. USE OF FUNnS, NON-FEDERAL SHARE. Sec. 496(a)(1). No funds shallbe used by local education agencies to provide educational services toyouth enrolled in secondary schools during regular school hours; and
(a)(2) No funds she 1 be used for student financial assistance,unlees perr;tted by regt /titans promulgated by the Secretary.
(b) Costs from Sec '92(a) not paid by grant may be paid in cash.
(c) For any FY not more than 5% of funds may be experded foradministration costs.
11. EVALUATIOU. Sec. 497(a). The Secretary shall provide anindependent evaluation of the vari,:is State approaches in differentdemonstration programs. Evaluation measures-may include:
(1) enrollment, retention and completion rates;(2) high school graduation rates;(3) avoidance of anti-social aril destructive behavior;(4) subsequent employment;(5) continued pursuit of advanced education and training;(6) admission into 4-year colleges and universities; or(7) admission into the armed forces.
(b) The Secretary shall submit a report detailing the evaluationresults to the President and the Congress no later than December 31,1994.
12. DEFINITIONS. Sec. 498(a).(a) "demonst Lion target area" means an area described in Sec.493 (3) and (4) that is designated under a plan submitted under
Sec.493.
E C
82
14
(b) 'youth" means individuals who are at least 16 and not morethan 24 years of age. Other than Sec. 491, the term 'youth" mayinclude, at the election of State agencies, individuals who are 14 or15 years of age.
'13, AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. Sec. 499(a). There areauthorized to be appropriated:
(i) $100 million for FY 1990.(ii) $150 million for FY 1991,(iii) $200,mi1lirs for FY 1992,(iv) $2501mi1libn fc7 FY 1993, and(v) suchosums as may be necessary for FY 1994.
SEC. 15. -- NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR EMPLOYMENT POLICY. Title IV ofthe Act is amended by striking part F, resulting in the elimination ofthe National Commission for Employment Policy.
83
Senator SIMON. One of the people who has been providing leader-ship in this whole area is an old friend, the Governor of the Stateof Ohio, and I am very pleased to have Governor Dick Celeste withus here today.Incidentally, for all the witnesses, you may proceed as you wish,because we will put your full statements in the record, and youmay proceed as you wish.Governor,>please.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD F. CELESTE, GOVERNOR, STATEOF OHIO, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATIONGovernor Celeste. Thanh you very much, Mr. Chairman.I want to first salute your long-time leadership in this arena andsay that I am pleased to be here both personally as an admirer and
a friend, and particularly on this occasion as a Governor, to testifyon behalf of the National Governors' Association, where I serve aschairman of our Human Resources Committee.This is the committee that has promoted welfare reform and, It ink, worked 'very constructively with members of Congress in thewelfare reform legislation that passedthis past year. We are work-ing now on reform of the administrative -financing of the Employ-ment Service and unemployment insurance. We are focused onchild care, an issue of considerable interest before the Congress
now, and dislocated worker training programs.The committee's work directly reflects the role which Governors
play in planning and managing the development of human capital,our citizens across the country. So I think that many ?f* my col-leagues are Certainly with Me, in .spirit, in saluting you. for yourleadership and in trying to address this very important program.I want particularly on behalf of tie Governors to applaud theamendments that you have proposed to=Titlell of the Job TrainingPartnership Act, because they will better focus the JTPA programdirectly on disadvantaged youth and the chronically unemployed.
The JTPA program was created in 1982 when our economy wasfaltering, and it was designed in considerable measure to addressthat circumstance. Over the past five or six yslars, the JTPA hasworked. The program served over 4.5 million Americans, at a costof about $8 billion.
I just want to point to one or two outstanding programs in Ohio.One was the Renewed Opportunities Program, which helps juvenileoffenders in Brown County, a rural county in sot...Nein Ohio, to, getback in the work. force and has succeeded 64 percent of the time.
The Tecumseh Consortium in Springfield, Ohio has established aservice network combining JTPA, the Ohio Bureau of EinploymentServices, the Ohio Department of Human Services, the Ohio Reha-bilitation Services Commission, and a variety 'of local educationaland sr vice agencies. Through skills training and remedial educa-tion p= ograms, this Consortium has placed More than 300 public as-sistance recipients into unsubsidized jobs just during 1988.
In program year 1987 alone, as you know, JTPA nationwideserved nearly 800,000 partidipants, 93 percent of whom were at orbelow the poverty level, received public assistance, were handi-capped, or lived in a foster home. In addition, 41 percent of them
88
84
were under the -age of 21, and 27 percent were high school drop-out., ,
I think it is important as we think about the impact of your pro-posed amendments to recognize the changing work force and our.changing priorities in this context.
As we lookto the 1990s, all of us understand that first, we face acritical shortage of workers in many respects; that most new jobsthat are created will require more education, not less; thet theSetwo' realities create an employment gap; and that filling that gap isgoing -to be costly.
Just to give you., a sense of the employment gap, our neighborState of Michigan in a study called Countdown 2000, estimatedthat at a minimum 1.2 million Michigan adults were caught,in thisgap and that another 100,000 would fall into it by 1995. In otherwords, their educati'un and skills were simply not' Up to the kinds ofjobs they anticipate as we move into the decade of the Nineties.
Filling this -gap is going to be costly. The, Michigan report esti-mates 060'W hicrease,one individual by one reading level in thecourse of their preparation.
The tragedy that we faceand- I think, Mr. Chairman, this iswhat you were alluding tois that the better-educated will findjobs; the under-educated will not. The better-eduCated, if there issome dislocation, will be quicker to land on their-feet; those with aminimum of education and skills will have a very difficult time.
The sections of the population with the lowest skills we find arechronically out of work. In Ohio, the State unemployment rate in1987,, the last year for which we-now have detailed statistics, was 7percent, but the rate among 16 to 19 year-olds was 17 percent;among 16' to 19 year-old- black youth it was 31.5 percent. In 1988,the school dropout rate for the whole State was 20 percent. Actual-1Y; we did pretty well among industrial States, graduating 80 per-cent f2f our young people from high school. But in East Cleveland,the dfopout rate was 59 percent, and in Columbus it was 52.5 per-cent.
Nor war the problem confined to our urban communities. BrownCounty, the home of the program I mentioned earlier, had a drop-out rate of nearly,52 percent as well.
Giver these work force realities, the NGA supports your effort totarget JTPA toward the sectors of the population with the lowestskills, particularly the young. By redefining eligibility, combiningall of the youth funds in one title and allowing for a year-long pro-gram, you have sharpenei the focus on youth; you have expandedour service optionsand I might say parenthetically, including thepossibility of taking money that previously we used basically in thesuLamer youth experience and providing it in the format of a youthservice corps, which I think has great meritand responded to thechanging demographics, which I hailedescribed.
The NGA wants to assure you that the JTPA system in theStates will respond to this kind of fresh direction.
At the same time wha,. I would like to do is to share a cautionarynote that many of my colleagues and I feel needs to be brought toyour attention as Congress moves forward.
I sense that one reason thy you have drafted these amendmentsis tc respond to a concern that has been expressed about the JTPA
89
85
system as one which kind of "creams" the most easily - employedand kind ofleaves behind those where the lack of skills is greatest.
I have looked at several of the studies that have been done on"creaming", and I think it is clear that while we have placed anumber of unemployed into jobs, generally it is true that the easi-est to place are placed first. One of the reasons for thisis apparent,and that is when JTPA was established, its emphasis was on cost-cutting and high productivity. So we created inct..itives for SDAs toplace as many people as they could at the lowest possible cost. Andinevitably in that circumstance, you look for those that you can doit most easily with.
I think there are some other less apparent reasons, and it is im-portant to bear these reasons in mind.as we think about reform inthe system. The first stems from the nature of JTPA. JTPA trainsclientsthose who need workwho are then hired by a corporatecustomer. Not surprisingly, the corporate customer for JTPA islooking for a graduate who represents the most-qualified applicant.So .the y in a sense create an expectation that ou are going to pickfrom the top of the list rather than the bottom.
The second reason stems from the growing efficiency of Stategovernment in an ironic way in coordinating efforts of differentpublic assistance programs. The TetiUmseh program I mentioned isa prime example of thaw kind of effort, because different agenciesshare the cost of servicing clients. Some of the more disadvantagedrecipientsindeed, some of the most disadvantaged recipientsmight not show up at all in JTPA numbers, although JTPA playeda role in the training and placement of them into the work force.All of this is to say that changing the emphasis of ,JTPA willmean that it is going-Ito take longer to get the same number of re-sults as in the past. How long and how difficult a job JTPA Willhave depends on the performance standards that the Departmentof Labor comes up with. And because the bill leaves open thesestandards, it is really difficult to estimate just whrAt that changewill mean. For example, the bill asks the Secretary of Labor to de-velop specific performance standards for the hard- to-Serve, whichat least-suggest that we would have two sets of standardsone forthe hard - -to -serve and then the.other, regular standards.
One alternative might be to allow current performance standardsto be adjusted by some factor, SDA by SDA, based on the percent-age of disadvantaged served or welfare clients in their programs,things of this kind, so that we could have a baseline standard andthen recognized reasons- for departure from that standard that wecould all use and apply In our particular cases.
In any event, I think, from the standpoint of our Governors, wewould like the standards to be as pragmatic and as realistic as pos-sible, so that standaids,do not push us back toward the, least needyamong the targeted Population.
The second aspect that I would` call attention to is that whateverctenjards we set, costs are virtually cr rtain to go up in order toaccomplish successful outcomes. The illustration I have here is ayoung woman named Janet, who is 18, years old, who reads at theeighth grade level. She does not have a high school diploma, shedoe not have work experience, and she has a three year -old daugh-ter.
0
(
86
In order to get to the point where the is employable, the systemis going to have to improve her reading skills by five grades. If weuse the Michigan report estimate of $560 per year, that is %2,800just to get her to the twelfth grade levelplus math competency,plus just the cost of doing G.E.D., Vitus some job-readiness training.
So I think we have to assume that; the co sts will be significantlyhigher per participant in a situation like this. Each lower-skilledclient.might cost twice as much.
The long-term savingS may be far greater through success. So Icertainly would strongly, as I say, support this direction, but weneed to have a realistic expectation.
One of the aspects of this cost impact is in staff time, servicingthese clients. It is going to take more case management to developa training plan and to see to it that it is followed through. In thiscontext I d like to suggest a change in one section of the legislationwhich could help us.
Moving the youth money from title II-A means that administra-tiVe resources for the States will drop by 40 percent as I under-stand it. I would .sk you to either increase the percentage of TitleII-A money available, or allow us to charge administrative ex-penses against the II-B program, to recognize that there will be ad-ditional administrative costs to make the program work the waywe want it to work.
The NGA thinks it is a good idea to in-tease the amount ofmoney available for incentive grants to SGT s which exceed per-formance standards in placing the most disadvantaged workers.That kind of incentive is always welcome, and it is a very positiveway of encouraging success.
Finally:I would just like to note that I think we will need a sus-tained effort to market these changes in the busine: z community.These are the employers we need to reach. They are key partnersin JTPA's success.
As we zero in on more difficult clients, we must be frank aboutour costs, about the placement time, and we must make sure thatthey are ready to work with us as partners to assure successful out-comes at the end of this investment.
One other obs:7vation, and this is really sort of beyond the scopeof your proposed let islation, which I strongly support. That is that,as we target the more disadvantaged individuals through this legis-lation, we are still going to have to take into account the needs ofworkers who might have been taken care of in the past throughsome other aspect of JTPA and may not bea displaced homemak-er who has a high school diploma but not the work experience, whohas come back into the market and who needs some kind of train-ing and help. And we are going to be' asking you, Mr. Chairmanand this is a plug, if I may, for something elsewe are going to beasking you to introduce legislation that would reform the adminis-trative financing of our employment services, to -ase employer taxdollars more efficiently, and to make certain that we do not losetrack of these other unemployed workers, but we hE 7e some realtools to address their needs, too, and we think we can do thatthrough the emploprient service.
91
And we have, finally, a consensus among the Governnrs on this,and we hope to bring it before Congress shortly.
I want to thank you again very much for your leadership on thismost urgent matter.
[The prepared statement of Governor Celeste follows:]
NATIONALGOVERNOR5ASSMATION
88
GenIsi L RAWCeversoc el WpmChums
Terry E. MendCoverww4low.Vice Owns.
STATEMENT OP
RICHARD F. CELESTE
FOR THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
Itayreasd C $46typethElem. Dame.
11.11 tithe Stun444 Noah
DC. 103014MTelepioee 1102) 04 WO
HEARING ON JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1989
r)
MARCH 9, 1989
89
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today as Chairman of the National Governors'
Association Committee on Buran Resources. Our committee hos promoted
reforms in welfare; administrative financing for the Employment service
and Unemployment Insurance; child care; and dislocated worker training
programs. The Committee's work directly reflects the role Governors
play in planning and managing the development of human capi,al.
We thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the personal interest you have taken in
what we believe is the number one priority of any Governor in this
country--yremerimg all Americana for th, jobs of the 1990a. And we
applaud the amendments you have proposed to Title II of the Job
1're:fling Partnership Act of 1982. They will better focus the JTPA
directly on disadvantaged youth and the chronically unemployed.
The JITA program as created in 1982 when the economy was faltering.
Back then, in Ohio, and across the country, we were concerned with
cutting coats and putting people back to work. As national public
policy, JTPA rev' - -'e' both once:paIts performancestandards were
designed to place as many people :41 possible into jobs at the lowest
cost. And JTPA worked. The pro.ram has served over 4.5 million
Americans at coat or d billion dollars.
The Renewed Opportunities Program is one of the more outstanding. It
helps juvenile offenders in Brown County, Ohio get back in the
workfmtlg--and succeeds 64 percent of the time. The Tecumseh
90
Consos.lum in Springfield, Ohio has established a service network
combining JTPA, the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services, the Ohio
Department of HUM= Services, the Ohio Rehabilitation Services
Commission and a variety of local educational and service agencies.
Through skills training and remedial education programs, the Consortium
placed more than 300 public assistance recipients into unsubsidised
jobs in 1988.
In program year 19$7 alone, JIPA naciorvide served 796,000
participants, 93 percent of mhos mere at or below the poverty level,
received public assistance, were handicapped or lived in a foster
hose. In addition, 1 percent were 21 years old or younger; and 27
percent were hith school dropouts.
Chancing Workforce. Chaneineirloritira
As we face the 1990s, however, all of us understand that:
We face a critical shortage of workers. The Office of
Technology Assessment estimates that the labor force will only
grow 1 percent annually--one-third the level of the 1970s.
Increasingly, we viii have to draw on those sectors served by
JTPA to fill in the gap.
Most new Jobs created v111 require more education.
According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 52
percent of all new job titles will demand some college-level
training. Most new Job growth v111 be In Jobs with higher
skills.
91
That creates an employment gap. We art, going to have to
bring more workers up to educational speed more quickly. In
or of the first studies of its kind, gouncdovn 100O,
Michigan's Catinet Council Task Foote on Ault Literacy,
estinated that, at a minimum, 1.2 million Michigan adults were
caught in the gap, and another 100,000 would fall into it by
1995.
filling the gap is going to be costly. Studies by
regeerthera like Richard Humane at Harvard and Jonathan
Tozol, in addition to the Michigan study, conclude that
workers of the future will need more problem-solving and logic
skills. In a 1986 National Assessment of Educational Progreso
Literacy Study, the Educational Testing Service found only 20
percent of those tested could perform oh a average on these
kinds of tests. Michigan reported that it would cost £560 to
Inereass one reading level alone.
The better educated will find jobs; the undereducated will
not. This fact is barked up by ch that shoved that
after the 1970a decline in manufactorin, v.loyment, workers
with better education found jobs sore quotkly. Others with
less education hove realined unemployedfor loader Pori"' of
time. The sections of the population with the lowest skills
ars chronically out of wok. In Ohio, IN. state unemployment
rate wad 7 percent in 19E7, for example, but the rate mug
16-19 year olds was 17 percent Mille that among 16-19 year old
92
blact youths was 31.5 percent. In 1998, the school drop-out
rate for the 'bole state is 20 percent but in East Cleveland
it is 59 percent, in Columbus it is 52.5 percent. Nor is the
problem confined to metropolitan areas; in rural Brown County,
the drop-out rate is 51.7 percent.
Given this workforce reality, the Mk supports your effort to target
=A toward the sectors of the population with toe lowest
Skills--particularly the young. By redefining eligibility, combining
all youth funds is one title, and allowing for s yearlong program, you
have sharpened the focus on youth, expanded the service options
(including the possibility of a youth service corps) and responded to
the changing demographics I have described.
The NCA wants to assure you that the MA system in the states will
respond. At the sane tine I want to caution that the response may be
sore wrenching to the system than sone in Congress sight expect.
She Beall,. of Performance
I believe one reason you have drafted the amendments is to respond to
charges that the /SPA system is 'creaming"--by that I mean quickly
serving the "cruet." of the =employed, those 0N the highest skills
levelsIn the manner of Soviet productionto k. p the numbers up.
I have reviewed three studies on creaming, by the National Commission
on Employment Policy. the Upjohn Institute and the University of
0
93
Chicago. Conclusions are mixed. Clearly, the JITA system Dag placed
tbx unemployed into jobs. Yet, there are some inefficiencies, and the
easiest to place are generally placed first.
One reason for this approach is clear. When JTPA was established, its-
emphasis on coat- cutting and high productivity, gave SDAs an incentive
to place as many people as they could at the lowest cost. That the
system responded is not a condemnation of the system. Anyone would
expect the system to place those it could as quickly as possible.
There are other leas apparent reasons. The first steno from the nature
of JTPA. JTPA trains 'clients", who are then hired by a corporate
"customer". Not surprisingly, the corporate custoner for the JTPA
graduate wants to hire the most qualified applicant first. A second
reason stems from the growing efficiency of state government in
coordinating efforts of differen: public assistance programs. The
Tecumseh program I mentioned is a prime example of that kind of
effort. Because different agencies share the costs of servicing
"clients," acme of the more disadvantaged recipients night not show up
in the JTPA numbers.
2stlini_yrzattir....granstirSi
All of this is to say that changing the emphasis of JTPA will mean it
will take longer to get the s4ste number of results as in the pest. Bev
long end how difficult a job MA will have depends on the precise
performance standards the Department of Labor cones up with. Because
the bill leaves open those standards, it is difficult to estimate just
what the change will mean.
97-74
-6-
94
For example, the bill asks the Secretary of Labor to develop specific
performance standards for the hard-to-serve. This Suggests that each
state and 5DA have tvo sets of standards. As an alternative, current
performance standards could be adjusted, 5DA by SPA, based upon the
percentage of disadvantaged, or velfare clients in their programs.
Such an adjustment vould recognize the increased cost of serving the
hard-to-serve vithout having to create two sets of standards.
The RCA urges that the new standards be as pragmatic and realistic as
Possible.
Increasing JiPA costs
whatever the standards set, however, it is certain that the cost for
each success story will go up.
Let se give you an example. Janet is eighteen years old, and reads at
the eighth grade level. She has no high school diploma, no work
experience and a three year old daughter. In order to prepare Janet
for a high school education, the system will have to improve her
reading competency by five grades. using the figure estimated by the
Michigan Countdown 2000 report, it will cost her SPA $2800 to bring her
up to the 12th trade levelthat figure does not include the costs for
increasing her oath abilities, on-the-job-training, child care, or CED
costs. Compare that with the average JTPA client cost of $2905. We
estimate that the costs, and time spent, on each lover skilled "client"
will double.
CSC). tJ
95
Part of the cost incentive will cone from a rise in staff tine spent
servicing each client. Janet's case will take more management, to
develop a plan for her training and then to see her through it.
I would suggest a change in one section of the legislation to help.
Moving the youth money out of Title IIA means that, administrative
resources for the states will drop by 40 percent. I would ask you to
either increase the percentage of Title IIA money available or allow us
to charge administrative expenses against the I/B program.
The SCA thinks it is a good idea to increase the amount of money
available for incentive grants to SDAs that exceed performance
standards in placing the most disadvantaged workers.
Finally, it is going to take a sustained effort to market these changes
to the business community. They are partners in JTPA. In zeroing in
on more difficult clients, we must be frank that our costs will
increase, and so our short term placements will decrease.
In targeting the bill at more disadvantage sectors, however, NGA
believes that you have to take into account %flit will happen to those
workers the JTPA has historically served. If Janet were a
nevly-unemployed steelworker and not a teenage mother, where could she
go to get help? Ws will soon be asking you to introduce legislation
that would reform the administrative financing of employment services,
to use employer tax dollars more efficiently, and make certain that we
do not ignore any unemployed worker.
X00
96
Senator &mom I thank you. If I could just comment on the latterpart of your recommendation, we will be happy to look at any sug-gestions.
I have had the feelingand I judge primarily by my experiencefrom Illinoisthat we have a lot of very fine and dedicated peoplein the employment service, but we are not utilizing them as effec-tively as we should be.
You are correct in why I have introduced the bill. As you look atthe numbers and the percentages who are not high school gradu-ates served by CETA and by the JTPA, the contrast is very, very-marked. That suggests that we are so eager for "success" that weare serving those who probably would be getting jobs anyway if wedid not have a JTPA program.
What we are going to have to do is focus on "Janet", if I can useyour illustration.
I was interested in your Brown County, Ohio and the Springfield,Ohio examples Springfield, because my daughter went to Witten-berg University in Springfield, Ohio. But I think we have to bespreading the success stories. We are going to be hearing from theMayor of Louisville shortly, who will be talking about some of thegood things they have been doing there. We need to stress this.
The points that you make are absolutely valid all the waythrough here. The one thing that you do touch on that I think wehave to keep in mind is that we cannot implement these programsin isolationthe literacy program, for example, is very importantto thisit is not part of the JTPA program, but it is a part of theoverall situation.
What could weI recognize I am going to another subcommitteeI am on heredo at the Federal level to encourage Ohio and otherStates to do moreand I do not mean this critically, because Ifrankly do not know what. you are doing in Ohiobut to do morein this whole literacy effort? And I realize this hits you out of theblue because it is not what you came to testify on.
Governor CELESTE. But it is a very important question, and Ithink we need to understand that literacy for our adult citizens is acritical ingredient of their ability to stay in the work force.
One of tilt. human tragedies I have witnessed is the dislocation ofworkers who have spent most of their work life in a plant wherethey knew their job and where they were tremendously successfulas a steel worker or as an auto worker, and only when there was asubstantial upheal, al in that workplace, with the introduction ofnew and sophisticated technology, were they obliged to acknowl-edge: "I cannot read."
During testimony in Mansfield, Ohio, on an education reform ini-tiative we had, I had one man in his early seventies who had justretired from a GM plant testify that until that previous year, thehappiest day of his life was when he was liberated from a prisonerof war camp in Germany at the end of World War II; but thatwhen he learned to read, it meant more to him than the liberationfrom that prisoner of war camp.
Senator Swim. He was liberated in a different way.Governor CELESTE. In an altogether different way. But he had
not been able to say anything to his family or to his fellow work-
101 f,
97
ers, and he had not been forced to acknowledge it until the work-place confronted him with it because of these changes.
I think that part of what we need to design in our programs thatfocus on employment and training is an incentive to recognize andaddress adult illiteracy. This is a particular problem with olderworkers, I believeit can happen at any age, but the place wherewe have the most difficulty is with older workers because they arevery reluctant to step back in school alongside youngsters who theyfeel are far more ready to deal with education than they are, be-cause they have simply been out of that setting for a very longtime. And whether it is in allowing community-based organizationsthat are focusing on literacy to join in and participate in trainingprograms that may be operated by Government agencies, I wouldthink that the Federal Government could help us in a number ofways.
I would be happy, Mr. Chairman, to give it some thought andtalk to our people back in Columbus and send you some sugges-tions.
Senator &mom I would appreciate it, because I am going to beintroducing some literacy legislation before very long. I think youare absolutely correct in what you say. Older people are not goingto walk into a grade school or into a high school.
Governor CELESTE. Even a community college can be a very un-comfortable place.
Senator &mom Yes. So what I think we have to do is figure outother ways of encouraging that.
I talked about "creaming", and you did somewhat in your state-ment. Do you have the impression that at the present Arne we areso results-oriented that in fact we encourage "creaming" at thepresent time?
Governor CELESTE. This is my own opinion now, and I cannotgive you a kind of a National Governors' Association position onit---
Senator SIMON. No. I am interested in your opinion.Governor CELESTE. I would have to say that probably as a, gener-
al rule, we are; that it would vary considerably from SDA to SDA.There are some that are very committed to tackling the hardest toemploy. But that is, I think, pretty clear the exception rather thanthe rule. And the system now rewards performance that tilts youtoward the easiest to place.
Senator SIMON. Let me add that Senator Metzenbaum wanted tobe here to welcome you. He is tired up in an important meeting ofthe Senate Intelligence Committee.
Governor CELESTE. Doing good work, I know. Thank you, Mr.Chairman.
Senator &mom He is a hard-working member of this bodyI donot need to tell you thatand a hard-working member of this com-mittee. And Senator Glenn is not on this committee, but has beenvery interested.
We will also review your suggest'-ns on II-A concerning admin-istrative costs. I do not have an answer just off the top of my head,but we will be moving some legislation, and we will be consideringthat. But just in general, your testimony is superb, and I really ap-preciate your being here.
102i
98
Governor CELESTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, andthank you again for your leadership on this. We are very grateful.
Senator SIMON. We thank you for your leadership as well.Next is a panel composed of Mayor Jerry Abramson, the Mayor
of Louisville, for the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and Hal Norgard,Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Ramsey County, Min-nesota, for the National Association of Counties.
Mr. Mayor, let me acknowledge that your able Congressman RonMazzo li was here just a little bit ago. I would love to say he cameover to the Senate side to see how we run a subcommittee properly,but I have an idea he was here to pay tribute to you. We were verypleased to have him, and pleased to have you here, Mr. Mayor.
We will let you start off this panel.
STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY E. ABRAMSON, MAYOR, CITY OFLOUISVILLE, KY, ON BEHALF OF U.S. CONFERENCE OFMAYORS, AND HON. HAL NORGARD, CHAIRMAN, COUNTYBOARD CF COMMISSIONERS, RAMSEY COUNTY, MN, ONBEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
Mayor ABRAMSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.It is certainly a pleasure to be with you, both as the Mayor of
Louisville, Kentucky and also as the Chairman of the Job TrainingCommittee of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
I thought in opening my presentation, I would give you a quickthumbnail profile of my community, and because I am going togive you a few examples that focus in on the issues we want toraise.
Louisville is a community of about 300,000 inside a county ofabout 650,000, with a metropolitan area of about 1 to 1.5 million.We are experiencing the same demographic changes in Louisvillethat are occurring all over the United Statesmore of our jobs arebeing created in the service sector; on the one hand, that is good,because health care jobs, finance jobs pay pretty well. On the otherhand, it is not so good when you focus on retail, food service andthe fast food industry.
In the early 1970s, we were a community where 40 percent of ourjobs were in manufacturing. Today we are down to 20 percent ofour jobs are in manufacturing. From 1979 to 1985, the number ofmales employed dropped by nearly 2 percent in Louisville, but infact the number of females employed in that same time frame in-creased by over 17 percent. In 1970, 12 percent of households wereheaded up by females in our community. In 1980, 22 percent ofhouseholds in our community were headed by women.
As we approach the year 2000, we see a dramatic graying of ourpopulation, and probably the most disheartening fact in our com-munity is that nearly one-fourth of the children in our communityare living in poverty.
So you begin to realize that we have got to do a better job. Cer-tainly, your interest focused in this area is something that we ap-preciate and applaud and appreciate this forum to discuss theissues, because when you talk about the declining birth rate, thisobviously means young people are becoming even more so a pre-
1 0 3 J
99
cious resource in this country, because we need them for the jobmarket to be able to be competitive in the global economy.
The areas that you are dealing with in the Senate on daycare,keeping kids in school, using JTPA money to focus on education isso very important, and also being sure that youngsters are not justlearning the 3 Rs when it comes to education, but are also learningcommunication skills, leadership skills, the kinds of thinking skillsthat you have got to have to be competitive in this marketplace.
I would like to go through the Act with you quickly to give you afeel for where the U.S. Conference supports and has some issues todiscuss with you in regard to your bill.
Certainly the success of JTPA over ,the years has truly been thepartnership between the Mayors and the PICs. I say "truly"Ishould cay "should be truly" in some situations, because I am notso sure the Mayors of this country have been as active as weshould have been, and I think that is one of my responsibilitieschairing this committee with the U.S. Conference of Mayors, is togenerate excitement among my colleagues about the importance ofyour bill and others that are foc ming on this issue for training themen and women in our communities as well as the youngsters.
The JTPA has always been the "glue", as I see it, between educar.tion and job programs. JTPA is not an institution. You do not havepeople out, screaming and yelling and supporting PICs as youwould lobbying you and writing you letters, because we are not aninstitution; we are a bonding element. We try to bring the jobs andthe education opportunities together to provide a service for thecitizens of our respective communities.
So just because you do not hear from a lot of city Mayors, or youdo not hear from a lot of county officials, I do not want you tothink we do not care, because we truly do, and we understand theimportance, and that is why we are here today.
In terms of the funding issue in your bill, Senator, we certainlysupport the increased funding of JTPA. We feel it is essential. Andof course, what mayor ever disagreed with increased Federal fund-ing for urban programs? We are with you, and we will support andapplaud along the way.
We also agree with your proposal to reduce the funding fluctua-tion for States and cities through the hold-harmless provision. Wehave got to know where we stand, so we can plan and provide con-tinuity for providing the kind of education necessary.
However, the formula is somewhat difficult in our minds, be-cause we see the potential of a shrinking pie. When you see thepotential of a shrinking pie, you see a changing formula and wewill have winners and losers. We are hoping the pie will expand,and we will have winners and bigger winners, so that we have anopportunity to support the efforts of the communities throughoutthis country that are supporting JTPA efforts.
Also, the formula gives a problem in terms of how do you definethe economically disadvantaged, where do you find them, what sta-tistics do you use. And as you know, we are about 10 years lateright now on the statistics that we are looking at when you look atthat issue.
The unemployment rate, in a city like Louisville or other citiesaround the country, it is certainly much easier to grab out and get
1 0 41.
100
a figure. We always have that problem in Kentucky, and I think ithappens in other States, where you have the city of Louisvillewhich has a larger unemployment base, and yet you have got therural areas such as eastern Kentucky and the Appalachian commu-nities that have a much larger economically disadvantaged group.So it is a balancing test, and we wish you well in making that bal-ance work and providing what is proper, because it is a difficult,difficult issue. We hope the pie expands, and we hope that that re-sponds to that issue.
We would like to see a return to the Federal/local relationship.There used to be a partnership about eight or nine or ten years agothat mayors used to sing aboutmaybe it is an old folk song thesedays. But we used to sing around the campfires about the Federal/local relationship. We appreciated receiving direct grants, and wewould spend them on things that were most supportive of what ourcitizens wanted and responsive to their needs.
Today in Louisville, for example, Title II-A, Title II-B funds, wedo receive those from the State, but we receive no dislocatedworker funds, we receive no kpercent funds for education, and if itcontinues to go through the State, the major urban areas in thiscountry will have difficulty and continue to have difficulty in get-ting what we think is our fair share for the major pockets of unem-ployment.
As relates to the composition of the PICs, you have tinkered withthat a bit yourself, certainly, in terms of the chairmanship situa-tion. Both of us had an opportunity to speak at the National Asso-ciation of Private Industry Councils, and I guess they must havebeat on your staff like they beat on me, and we are now all focusedtoward having a private individual as chair. I certainly appreciatethat change; I support that very, very much.
I think the relationship in terms of changing the overall compo-sitionI am not so sure it is "broke"the old "don't fix it unless itis broke". I think that maybe, perhaps, the problem is with themayors. I think we have got to have a more aggressive local rela-tionship, b -Hied through the mayors' involvement with the PICs.And before you change the composition of the PICs, I would submitthat you ought to give me a chance to try to excite some of my col-leagues a little bit to get them more involved and see if that mightnot handle the issue that you are focusing on.
It s a challenge to us, and I think it is one that the mayors areprepared to stand up and work on.
Your youth initiatives as a separate youth title is justified un-questionably, to emphasize the importance of young people acquir-ing basic skills; allowing the Summer Youth Program fund to be ayear-around program, we support 100 percent. And the idea of yourYouth Opportunity Challenge Grant, I find fascinating, as I said toyou earlier this morning, because it gives a community an opportu-nity to be creative. And we are not going to solve these problemsby throwing money at them all the time. There has got to be alittle ingenuity, there has got to be a little creativity.
In our community, we decided we would focus on our kids andbegin to find the at-risk youngsters in our school system. We specif-ically chose over 1,000 of them, and through our Private IndustryCouncil funded a counselor in each of our 22 hign schools to work
105
101
with these at-risk kids and to give them an opportunity to havejobs in the summer should they go to school and finish the ninth ortenth grade, a part -time job during school of them attend class, andone they graduate high school, we have +" r.. jobs guaranteed by ourbusiness community to give them an entry-level opportunity at-work. That is 1,000 jobs from the business community, and 1,000youngsters in the program, and it would not be a reality withoutthe Private Industry Council funding to cover the counseling thatgoes on in each of the high schools.
That is a success story. We have decreased the number of daysthe kids have missed in school by 97 percent, those at-risk kids, byguaranteeing them an after-school job or a summer job; if they willattend class and finish the year, ninth, tenth, eleventh, andtwelfth, we decrease by over 95 percent the number of days thatthey have been absent, so they are going to class, and we are focus-ing them toward the importance of receiving that degree.
I think your Challenge Grant program will give others through-out the United States an opportunity to use that kind of ingenuityand creativity to bring about success.
One other issue, and that is the window of eligibility. Your legis-lation focuses on opening that window a bit, loosening it, if youwill. I am not so surewell, let me say it this way. Today we areonly responding to about 5 percent of the eligible population. And Iam not sure that by making more people eligible, whether that infact will respond to the reach-out issue that I think you are tryingto discuss in your legislation.
However, I do agree that the one exception, to expand thatwindow and to loosen it, ought to be for the kids, those at-risk kidswho really need the assistance to keep them in school, keep themeducated, and keep them involved with ultimately moving towardbeing an asset in our respective cities rather than a liability.
I guess in conclusion, Senator, I would just simply say that weare out there op the streets in home-town America, dealing withthis Act every day, and it has been a tremendous support for thosemayors throughout the United States in trying as best we can tofocus on giving young people and adults, dislocated workers, etcetera, an opportunity for the year 2000 to have a job, to raise theirfamilies, to put a roof over the heads and to provide an opportr-nity for a quality of life we all want for our friends, our neighborsand our citizens.
We appreciate the forum that you are giving us and others likeyou are focusing on, because without, we cannot get the issuebefore the American people. And certainly, your leadership is ap-plauded by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and we look forwardand we stand ready to work with you toward the resolution of thisissue.
Thank you, Senator.[The prepared statement of Mayor Abramson follows:]
102
STATEMENT OFJERRY E. ABRAMSON
MAYOR OF LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKYBEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENTAND PRODUCTIVITYUNITED STATES SENATE
MARCH 9,1989
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
On behalf of the U. S. Conference of Mayors and my counterparts from hundreds of
cities across this country, I thank you tor the opportunity to testify before you on
proposals to strengthen the Job Training Partnership Act. I also commend you for
bringing attention to this important piece of legislation at a time when issues of
productivity and basic skills are of critical importance.
Louisville is a city of 300,000 in Jefferson County, which has a population of 700,000.
Our metropolitan area contains nearly one million persons. As we enter the 1990s,
we are facing challenges seen by many cities across the nation. We are experiencing
major demographic changes. These changes, along with economit and lifestyle
changes, are having major effects on man of our citizens. While we have
experienced a recent surge in business activity, and in the prosperity of many of our
citizens, we remain concerned that a significant segment of our population is ill-
equipped to share in this prosperity. Among the changes we are seeing in our
workforce are:
Most new jobs are in the service sectorthese include both lower paying jobs
in retail trade and food service and higher paying jobs in education, health
care, and finance.
Manufacturing jobs which accounted for one third of all jobs in the mid-70s
now account for one -fifth of alljobs.
1
103
Between 1979 and 1985, the number of males emnloyed in our community
dropped by 1.8% while the number of females employed increased by 16.7%.
In 1970 12% of our COMMUtlibeS households with children were female-
headed. By 1980 this had increased to 22%,
When we look from 1970 and project to 2000, we see a dramatic "graying" of
our population resulting from aging "baby boomers- and declining birth
rates.
Nearly onequarter of all children in ou- community live in poverty, with
obvious implications for the public school system.
The message to cities and mayors is clear. Youths are, more than ever, a precious
commodity that we can't afford to waste. We must deal with day care issues. We
must do a better job of dropout prevention. We cannot allow students to escape
from our educational institutions without acquiring the basic skills needed for
success in today's job market.
Adults with the right skills will also be increasingly valuable. Dr. David Birch of MIT
recently addressed business and education leaders in Louisville and told them that
your greatest challenge, whet you're going to have to do is to reskall every single
adult in your community over the age of 25 in one way or another in the next 5 or 6
years, or you're going to be in some difficulty.' Local employment and training
systems must be quick to respond to this challenge, or the mismatch between
workers' skills and employers' skill needs will continue to increase.
The Job Training Partnership Act ()TPA) is an essential piece of legislation that
provides a solid foundation for local communities to respond to these challenges. It
established local elected officials and private industry councils as equal partners
104
who would jointly provide policy guidance and oversight for a performance driven
system.
I like to think of JPTA as glue that can be used to bond existing institutions, or parts
of them, together in new and creative patterns that are responsive to a volatile
labor market. Glue isn't worth much all by itselfits value is in the product it creates
by merging separate pieces together into a distinctly new item. It usually involves
glueing jobs to education or education to jobs. The analogy is as true at the
individual level as it is at the instructional level. Broken lives and broken dreams can
often be repaired with this stuff by bringing the disenfranchised back into the
mainstream of the labor force.
From the beginning, JTPA wasn't meant to be a separate system that would develop
its own institutional base. That has proved to be both a strength and a weakness.
Our strength is that we have no institutional turfs to protect. We can look
objectively at public school systems, the public employment service, post-secondary
training institutions, and community based organizations and judge them
according to their strengths and weaknesses. Our weakness is that, in not building
a new institution, we have not built a turf to project. This means that our lobbying
efforts and constituencies have not been vocal enough. This shouldn't surprise you-
-the loudest voices are usually from those who are trying to preserve their turf, their
jobs, and the status quo.
I can't overestimate the value of mayors and PICs as partners. The glue I've referred
to is really epoxy. Epoxy comes in two parts. The individual parts aren't capable of
causing anything to stick together. Combine them, though, and you get apowerful
bonding agent. PICs and mayors work the same way. The problems and solutions
are too complex for either to handle independently.
What kind of system is JTPA trying to build? Senator Simon, you have described it as
being an education system. PICs often describe it as being a jobs system The
109
105
arguiront reminds me of the beer commercial''Tastes great! Less filling!"
Obviously, it should be both and isn't fulfilling its mission unless it is both. That
means that getting people jobs without making sure that skills have been acquired
isn't enough. It means that job skills and no job also misses the mark.
The system's most appealing quality is that it is success-driven, with success
measures built on outcomes, not processes. Any deviation from this focus on results
would be a step in the wrong direction. This performance emphasis has led to local
discussions and local decisions that are of much higher quality than in the past. For
instance, if I have a community based organization that I'm interested in providing
funds to, I don't ask ''How can you fund them?' Rather, I ask '''How can their
performance be brought up to established standards?' Performance is a
requirement for fundingperiod.
With the preceding as backdrop, allow me to continue with a few comments on
specific JTPA changes that you are considering:
FUNDING: 'tau are absolutely correct in seeking a higher funding level for JTPA.
JTPA funds work on the core problems, rather than treating the symptoms. The
need to improve basic skill levels in orcer to increase our nation's competitiveness is
high on the nation's agenda. Unfortunately, JTPA is not as high on the nation's
agenda as it should be, even though it has a solid foundation and a proven track
record.
You are also correct in striving to reduce funding fluctuations for states and cities
through "hold-harmless" provisions. JTPA funds will be much more effective in
building new local structuies if the funds are seen as stable and long-term.
Otherwise, the funds will be used for ''add-on' projects which quickly become
"subtract-off" projects with funding reductions. These kinds of projects lead to
little institutional change. Institutional change iswhat we need.
106
Changing the funding formula is a much more difficult issue. Again, you are correct
in attempting to tie allocations as closely as possible to eligible participants residing
in a given area. Two problems quickly surface in this effort. First, the quality of data
leaves something to be desired, especially small geographical areas and narrow
target populations. Second, with r. constant or shrinking pie, changing the formula
creates winners and losers and becomes a divisive issue. I suggest that changing the
formula should be tied to funding increases so that there will be winners and bigger
winners.
Finally, on the funding issue, a return to direct federal funding of major urban areas
would alleviate some of our problems. Currently, the Louisville/Jefferson County
service delivery area receives only Title IIA and Title IIB funds from .he state. Nc
dislocated worker funds or "8% funds" for educational programs are passed on to
local service delivery areas for coordination with HA and IIB programs. A lot of time
and energy is spent in trying to coordinate locally-run JTPA programs with state-run
JTPA programs in our metropolitan area. Job applicants, training applicants, and
employers also suffer from the unnecessary bureaucracy_ Thus I agree with your
proposal to send some of the "8% funds" to local service delivery areas. Sending all
of it would be even better.
COMPOSITION OF PICs.
By suggesting "a broader and more balanced representation on local Private
Industry Councils," you infer that something is out of balance in our current
arrangement. The system, as we are all aware, was built on a tricky balancing act.
What may be out of balance, in some cases, is the local relationship between the PIC
and elected officials. If mayors don't provide the public sector balance to a
business-led PIC, the inclination is to alter the PIC by inserting more non-business
members. Weakening the private sector ownership of PICs doesn't strike me as the
answer. Strengthening the public sector side of the balance might provide a better
answer. Senator, both you and I recently had an opportunity to address the
111
107
NationPI Association of Private Industry Councils' memhe- .iip It their-annual
meeting. Several of the PIC Chairs I spoke v:i'th at that meeting expressed concern
That your proposed amendments suggestthatthe p' rate sector role istoo strong. I
believe this is the wrong message to send. Your rerent change to keep the PIC Chair
as a representative of the private sector helps to address this concern. I suggest that
you also re-think your proposal to set required percentages of non-private
members. In many cases this will result in ar mrrease in the number of people with
conflicts of interest sitting at the table.
YOUTH INITIATIVES. The country 1: become keenly aware of the connection
betwerm basic skills for all youths and our economic survival. A separate youth title
appears justified in order to emphasize this concern and to identify clear, skills-
based outcomes for youth enrollees. Allowing Summer Youth program funds to be
used year-round is also a n eded change. We, along with many other cities, have
found that eight weeks of summer work experience doesn't solve many problems
for a high school student who is reading at the third grade level and has little hope
of gaining meaningful job skills. Any summer program should be blended with year-
round, multi year strategies that work hand-in-hand with the local public school
system.
The idea of a "Youth Opportunity Challenge Grant" program is also appealing as a
means of stimulating innovation at the local level. Local elected officials, PICs, and
school systems can become energized by this type of competition and by the
requirement to generate other funding sources. Many of our cities have
experienced this kind of coalition building through the National Alliance of
Business's efforts to replicate elements of the Boston Compact. We in Louisville are
proud to have a successful product of that process. I wish to caution you, however,
on one part of your proposal. Your proposal appears to open the door to the
creation of another local council. The PIC-elected official structure is already in
place under JTPA. I urge you to consider using the local JTPA partnership as the
108
requireci base of activity fur the Challenge Grant. To do otnorwise is to risk setting
up competing or duplic22e councils.
Mayors are becoming more active in dealing directly with loce! sch."I systems. The
mayors of Boston, Denver, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Min n e.poltsto mime a few--have
become directly involved in local education issues, because they inderstand the
relationship of education to economic development. Your proposals cpn
strengthen our ability to attack the problems without drawing batt:e lines beset: on
traditional turf concerns.
CREATION OF ADDITIONAL ELIGIBILITY "WINDOW." In general, I would oppose
"loosening' of eligibility requirements under !TPA. At present, we are able to serve
less than 5 percent of the eligible population. We are also accused, fr 'ime to
time, of "creaming" to meet desired performance levels. Loosening of eligibi ity
would seem to be at odds with both of these concerns. I would make an exception,
however, for the situation you proposeyouths who clearly face substantial barriers
to employment. When it is dear that a youth is at risk," we ought to be able to use
JTPA funds to do something about it, because we have so much to lose by our
inaction. That is the approach we take in th, Louisville Education and Employment
Partnership Program for students in the 9th through 12th grades.
Overall, I think you can see that we agree more than we disagree. You and your
staff are to be commended for your responsiveness to comments from the field.
With the changes you have already made, I was afraid that I would have nothing to
complain about by the time I testified.
In closing, let me re-emphasize that JTPA works. It works because:
r The private sector has substantial ownership;
The system demands performance;
It tramples on turfs of lethargicsystems.
1.1..1
.0-
109
Returning to my previous analogy, this glue called JTPA can be extremely powerful
in piecing together new local structures. What we need is:
More glue;
The flexibility to apply it where it's needed;
Pi's and mayors who will apply sufficient pressure until the new structures set
properly.
The mayors are prepared to be equal partners. This program has a solid foundation,
a foundation we can build on in addressing a broad range of employment and
training needs. I look forward to working with you to insure that we continue the
building process.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared comments. I would be happy to answer
any questions.
110
Senator SIMON. We thank you, Mr. Mayor. I can see, after listen-ing to you testify, how you have managed to run for re-electionwithout any opposition in Louisville. Not too many people are inthat situation.
Commissioner Norgard, we are pleased to have you here, and wewould like to hear from you at this point.
Commissioner NORGARD. Thank you, and hi.Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to testify on the
proposed JTPA Youth Employment Amendments of 1989.I am Hal Norgard, Chairman of the Board of County Commis-
sioners of Ramsey County, Minnesota. We are the smallest countyin Minnesota and a densely populated county in the State, so wehave a good mix.
I will speak later on as to our own individual problems and suc-cesses.
Today I am here to present the views of the National Associationof Counties. There are approximately 32 counties that I am speak-ing for today.
In general, we believe the JTPA system is doing what it was de-signed to do. A high percentage of those who complete training areplaced in jobs. Service delivery areas sat placement goals and aremeasured against those goals at the end of each program year. Anagency can lose its designation if it fails to meet its goals. Thisdemonstrates that the system is driven by the performance stand-ards.
Last Thursday a group-of elected county officials and program di-rectors reviewed the new version of the bill. I will briefly summa-rize the recommendations. You have before you my testimony, andthis will briefly highlight it.
Senator SIMON. We will enter your full testimony in the record.Commissioner NORGARD. Thank you.In principle, we agree that the funds should be allocated to State
and local areas on the basis of their share of eligible population.Your proposal points out that while the block grant and youth pro-grams are designed to serve economically disadvantaged individ-uals, two-thirds of the funds under the present formula are allocat-ed to State and local areas on the basis of unemployment data.Only one-third is allocated on the basis of economically disadvan-taged data.
Before any changes are adopted in the distribution formula, amore accurate data base must be established that provides currentdata on eligible clients residing in all areas. Equitable fundingmust also be provided to ensure access to services to eligible clientsin urban, suburban and rural areas.
The stability of funds is also a critical issue for local service de-livery areas. We would urge the subcommittee to avoid anychanges in the formula that would cause drastic shifts in State andlocal funds on a year-to-year basis.
We would also urge the subcommittee to recognize the highercosts associated with training hard-to-serve clients. Since these cli-ents have greater training needs, they usually require longer, moreintensive training.
115
111
We appreciate the proposed adjustment to the performancestandards which recognize the difficulty in helping hard-to-serveclients to overcome multiple barriers to employment.
Combined youth programs. We support giving increased flexibil-ity to local areas to combine all youth activities into one program.This will enable service delivery areas to address the needs ofyouth in a more comprehensive manner. We also support separateperformance standards for in-school and out-of-school youth.
Composition of the PICs. We believe the Private Industry Coun-cils are working well under the current law, and we would not liketo see any changes. The proposed minimum percentage for laborand community.based organizations and for public agencies willundermine local flexibility to appoint members to the PIC that re-flect community needs.
And here, I have got to ad lib a little bit. We are very proud ofour NC, and I bring this up because we have a good mix, and wemeet the quotas. But we have people from all walks of life. Wehave youth there, and we have older people. We have a real goodmix. I think it is the greatest thing we have going for us, because itunites the community, and it brings people together.
I am going to leave with you a video that we just made. This wascosponsored with the two JTPA programs in our county, private in-dustry, the McKnight Foundation, which is 3M, the County Board,and our Human Servit'es Department. I will leave that with you.
But the important thing is it is another staff person for you, be-cause when we sit and meet, there are two county commissionerson that PIC, and when we sit and meet, we bring a lot of thingstogether. Just to use an example hereand this just happened lastweekone of the PIC members brought to our group the Presbyte-rian home, which is in the medical field, that they would be inter-ested in training and working with some of our people. This is anentry fee of about $6.50 per hour, with fringes, the medical anddental. And if it had not been for that PIC person, we would nothave known about it. So it really works, and we are really happywith our PIC, and I am glad to see that we want to leave thatchairman the way it is.
Now, on the challenge grants. We question the need for anotherdemonstration program that would serve clients outside the exist-ing delivery system. We feel that the additional funds called for inthe bill could be better used by increasing assistance for adults andyouth in the existing programs. The new five-year demonstrationprogram would also open the door to duplication, since funds couldbe distributed to a wide variety of agencies outside of the existingservice delivery system.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, we believe the JTPA system has es-tablished a successful track record and that it could be fine-tunedto better serve the most needy in our communities. We believe theproposed changes in the performance standards that expand posi-tive outcomes for hard-to-serve clients and allow increased expendi-tures for support services will encourage greater service.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We would be happy toanswer any questions.
I think another thing that is important to our county boardwehave two people sitting on that PIC. And we give hard county
G.
112
money to keep our program going. I think in 1985, we put $10,000into it; the next year it was about $22,000; the following year, itwas about $69,000; and in 1988, we put about $89,000 into it.
So we are involved, and I want you to know that we are a seven-member board, and it is seven-to-zero, and that is pretty good withour board, I'll tell you that.
So you can see that we have interested people on it, we work atit, and we believe in the program. And I have been 14 or 15 yearson the board, and I have been through all the programsI havelearned the alphabet, I'll tell you thatthere are a lot of programs,and you have to work at it. If you do not work at it, you are notgoing to be successful. It takes time, and it is fundamentals.
I have coached for years, and my philosophy of life is that youwork on fundamentals, and the harder you work on fundamentals,the luckier you get, and you learn work ethics. I think this is very,very important. So we have to do a better job, We always sit downand tell people: "You can do better." And I believe that is right.But to do it, it takes time, it takes money, it takes energy, andwithin your own heart, you have a feeling that you have accom-plished something. Every person has to feel that, and that takestime.
I heard you, Mr. Chairman, ask about the schools and how webest can do this. Being a school teacher, I say start in the elemen-tary schools and work at it. I do not care in the elementary schoolsif it is one towhatever your quotabut in high school where Itaught, one-to-300, and I can handle that. But in that elementaryschool, whatever it takes, if it is one-to-one, one-to-ten, or whateverit is, that is the only way you are going to win. It takes time, andyou have got to work at itand you cannot give up.
Thank you.[The prepared statement of Commissioner Norgard follows:]
117
113
NATIONALASSOCIATION
ofCOUNTIES
440 First St, NW, Washington, DC WW1
202/3936226
STATEMENT or
THE HONORABLE HAL NORGARD
CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
BEFORE THE
SENATE EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY SUBCOMMITTEE
ON THE
JTPA YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AMENDMENTS OF 1989
MARCH 9, 1989
WASHINGTON, DC
114
THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TES:TIFY ON THE PROPOSED JTPA YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AMENDMENTS OF 1989.
I AM HAL NORGARD, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IN RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA. I AM DEEPLY HONORED TO APPEAR
BEFORE THE SUB=MMTTEE TO PRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES.* THE ASSOCIATION TAKES GREAT PRIDE IN
REPRESENTING OVER TWO-THIRDS OF OUR NATION'S 3,106 COUNTIES IN
RURAL, SUBURBAN AND URBAN AREAS ACROSS AMERICA.
BEFORE I COMMENT ON THE BILL, WE WOULD FIRST LIKE TO
COMMEND YOU FOR INVOLVING US IN THE EARLY STAGES OF DEVELOPING
THIS LEGISLATION AND FOR KEEPING THE DIALOGUE OPEN AS CHANGES
HAVE BEEN ADOPTED. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO COMMEND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE STAFF FOR MEETING WITH US, AND LISTENING TO OUR
CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THE PROPOSED CHANGES WILL AFFECT JOB TRAINING
*THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES IS THE ONLY NATIONALORGANIZATION REPRESENTING COUNTY GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES.THROUGH ITS MEMBERSHIP, URBAN, SUBURBAN AND RURAL COUNTIES JOIN
TOGETHER TO BUILD EFFECTIVE, RESPONSIVE COUNTY GOVERNMENT. THE
GOALS OF THE ORGANIZATION ARE TO: IMPROVE COUNTY GOVERNMENT;
SERVE AS THE NATIONAL SPOKESMAN FOR COUNTY GOVERhaENT: ACT AS ALIAISON BETWEEN THE NATION'S COUNTIES AND OTHER LEVELS OF
GOVERNMENT: ACHIEVE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROLE OF COUNTIES
IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM.
-1-
.1L9
115
PROGRAMS AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL. BECAUSE OF YOUR HARD WORK
AND DEDICATION, SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE THE
INITIAL DRAFT OF THE BILL. WE REMAIN CONFIDENT THAT FINAL
LEGISLATION WILL BE ADOPTET: THAM WILL BUILD UPON THE SUCCESS THAT
WE HAVE ALREADY tXPERIUNcZU.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS SEES TO HEW TARGET LIMITED
FUNDS, ESTABLISH BROADER REPRESENTATION ON THE PRIVATE INDUSTRY
COUNCIL AND CREATE A NEW FIVE-YEAR DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM TO
IMPROVE ASSISTANCE MR YOUTHS WITH SEVERE BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT.
MAJOR CHANGES WOULD BE MADE IN THE DISTRIBUTION FORMULA FOR ADULT
AND YOUTH TRAINING PROGRAMS, SEPARATE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS WOULD
BE DEVELOPED FOR HARD-TO-SEEVE PARTICIPANTS, AND LOCAL AREAS
WOULD RECEIVE INCREASED FLEXIBILITY TO COMBINE ALL YOUTH
ACTIVITIES IN ONE PROGRAM.
WE AGREE THAT MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE TO BETTER 1VE THOSE
MOST IN NEED. TEEN PARENTS, SCHOOL DROPOUTS, THOSE WAO ARE
DEFICIENT IN READING AND MATH SKILLS, LANG-TERN WELFARE CLIENTS
AND OTHERS WITH MULTIPLE BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT MUST NOT BE
OVERIAORED. REDUCTIONS IN OUR POPULATION GROWTH, CHANGES IN OUR
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND INCREASING GLOBAL COMPETITION WILL DEMAND A
MUCH MORE HIGHLY TRAINED, HIGHLY SKILLED WORK FORCE AS WE
-2-
.120
116
APPROACH THE YEAR 2000. EVEN NOW AS WE SPEAK, WE ARE FACING A
CRITICAL SHORTAGE OF SKILLED WORKERS IN MANY AREAS. WE HOST
HAKE EVERY EFFORT TO TRAIN EVERYONE TO BE PRODUCTIVE CITIZENS.
COUNTY OFFICIALS HAVE LONG HAD A VITAL INTEREST IN HELPING
THE MOST NEEDY IN OUR COMMUNITIES TO BECOME SELF-SUFFICIENT. THE
JTI" PROGRAM OFFERS US A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING TOGETHER
THOSE WHO NEED JOBS WITH THOSE WHO NEED TRAINED WORKERS. UNDER
THE CURRENT SYSTEM, LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIAL! 'AND PRIVATE INDUSTRY
COUNCILS HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY THEY NEED TO DESIGN PROGRAMS TO
TRAIN ELIGIBLE CLIENTS FOR LABOR SHORTAGES THAT EXIST IN THE
LOCAL BUSINESS COMMUNITY. IT IS THIS PARTNERSHIP THAT HAS
CONTRIBUTED MUCH TO THE SUCCESS OP THE PROGRAM. THIS CONCEPT HAS
WORKED VERY WELL IN RAMSEY COUNTY. LAST YEAR 347 PARTICIPANTS
COMPLETED TRAINING UNDER OUR BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. OF THAT TOTAL,
249 (72%) FOUND JOBS WITH AN AVERAGE STARTING WAGE OF $6.54 PER
HOUR. LET HE JUST ADD THAT 97 OF THOSE COMPLETING THE PROGRAM
WERE ADULT WELFARE CLIENTS AND 64 (67%) OF THOSE FOUND JOBS AT AN
AVERAGE STARTING WAGE OF $6.75 PER HOUR.
IN GENERAL, WE BELIEVE THE JTPA SYSTEM IS DOING WHAT IT WAS
DESIGNED TO Di -- PLACING A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF THOSE WHO COMPLETE
TRAINING INTO JOBS. SERVICE DELIVERY AREAS ARE REQUIRED TO SET
PLACEMENT GOALS AGAINST WHICH THEY ARE MEASURED AT THE END OF
EACH PROGRAM YEAR. FAILURE TO MEET THESE GOALS COULD CAUSE AN
AGENCY TO LOSE ITS DESIGNATION AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE ENTITY: AND
-3-
121
117
CONSEVERTLY TO LOSE ITS RIG= TO ADMINISTER JOB TRAINING
PROGRAMS IN THE FUTURE.
BECAUSE THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS PERFORMANCE DRIVEN, NATIONAL
REPORTS WILL SHOW THAT LOCAL SERVICE DELIVERY AREAS HAVE
RESPONDED ACCORDINGLY. THE DECEMBER 1980 JOE TRAINING QUARTERLY
SURVEVESTINATES THAT, 487,400 PARTICIPAATS ACROSS THE NATION
FOUND aoss AFTER LEAVING THE TITLE II-A BLOCK :RANT PROGRAM IN
1987_. THIS REPRESENTS 64 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL TERMINATIONS. IF
J ISOLATE ADULTS, TEE REPORT WOWS THAT 72 PERCENT FOUND am
W* AX AVERAGE STARTING WAGE or $5.11 PER HOUR. FOR ADULT
swim CLIENTS, THE REPORT SHOWS THAI. 62 PERCENT GOT JOBS, AND
Pc SCHOOL DROPOUTS,, 60 PERCENT GOT JOBS. WHILE WE ARE NOT
CalLELETELY SATISFIED WITH THESE STATISTICS, WE BELIEVE THEY ARE
EXPRESSIVE, PARTICULARLY WHEN WE CONSIDER. THAT THEY FAR EXCEED
THE NAIDNIALSTANDARDS.
AS WE ICCNTIONED EARLIER, We AGREE WITH YOU MR. CHAIREAti,
THAT MORE CAN AND SHOULD BE DONE TO HELP CLIENTS WITH MULTIPLE
EAAEXEMS TO EMPLOYMENT. WHILE WE SUPPORT MANY ASPECTS OF THE NEW
BILL, NE MAIN CONCERNED ABOUT SEVERAL AREAS. LAST THURSDAY A
MOPE GROUP or COUNTY ELECTED orriculs AND PROGRAM DIRECTORS
REVIEWED THE NEW VERSION OF TEE BILL AND MADE RECOMYENDATIONS FOX
CZANOES. : WILL BRIEFLY SURNAME THE POSITION THAT THE NATIONAL
gssocuriou or COUNTIES ADOPTED AT OUR ANNUAL LEGISLATIVE
CONFERENCE.
-A-
118
DISTRIBUTION FORMULA
IN PRINCIPLE WE AGREE THAT FUNDS SHOULD BE ALLOCATED TO
STATE AND LOCAL AREAS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR SHARE OF THE ELIGIBLE
POPULATION. YOUR PROPOSAL POINTS OUT THAT WHILE THE BLACK GRANT
AND YOUTH PROGRAMS ARE DESIGNED TO SERVE ECONOMICALLY
DISADVANTAGED INDIVIDUALS, TWO-THIRDS OF THE FUNDS UNDER THE
CURRENT FORMULA ARE ALLOCATED TO SPATE AND LOCAL AREAS ON THE
BASIS OF UNEMPLOYMENT DATA, AND ONLY ONE-THIRD IS ALLOCATED ON
THE BASIS OF ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED DATA. TO ADDRESS THIS
PROBLEM, THE BILL WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF
FUNDS THAT WOULD BE ALLOCATED TO AREAS BASED ON ECONOMICALLY
DISADVANTAGED DATA. OR THE BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, THE AMOUNT
ALLOCATED ON THE B.SIS OF ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED DATA WOULD
BE INCREASED TO 50 PERCENT. THE REMAINING 50 PERCENT WOULD BE
ALLOCATED ON THE BASIS OF A STATE'S RELATIVE SHARE OF THE
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED INDIVIDUALS.
THE PROBLEMS IN THE DISTRIBUTION FORMULA EXTEND BEYOND THE
WEIGHTED FACTORS WHICH FAVOR UNEMPLOYMENT DATA. THE ECONOMICALLY
DISADVANTAGED DATA IS BASED ON 10-YEAR 'OLD CENSUS INFORMATION
WHICH DOES NOT REFLECT THE CURRENT NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS RESIDING
IN STATES AND LOCALITIES. UNTIL THIS PROBLEM IS CORRECTED, WE
MAY NEVER BE SURE THAT FUNDS ARE ALLOCATED TO AREAS WITH THE
GREATEST NEED.
-5-
123
119
BEFORE ANY CHANGES ARE ADOPTED IN THE DISTRIBUTION FORMULA,
AMORE ACCURATE DATA BASE MUST BE ESTABLISHED THAT PROVIDES
CURRENT DATA ON ELIGIBLE CLIENTS RESIDING IN ALL AREAS.
EQUITABLE FUNDING MUST ALSO BE PROVIDED TO ENSURE ACCESS TO
SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE CLIENTS IN URBAN, SUBURBAN AND RURAL AREAS.
THE STABILITY OF FUNDS IS ALSO A CRITICAL ISSUE FOR LOCAL
SERVICES DELIVERY AREAS. WE WOULD URGE THE SUBCOMEErrtE TO AVOID
ANY CHANGES IN THE FOIEWLA THAT WOULD CAUSE DRASTIC SHIFTS IN
STATE AND LOCAL FUNDS ON A YEAR TO YEAR BASIS.
WE WOULD ALSO URG., THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO RECOGNIZE THE HIGHER
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH TRAINING HARD-TO-SERVE CLIENTS. SINCE
THESE CLIENTS HAVE GREATER TRAINING NEEDS, THEY USUALLY REQUIRE
LONGER, MORE INTENSIVE TRAINING. WE APPRECIATE THE PROPOSED
ADJUSTMENTS IN THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS WHICH RECOGNIZE THE
DIFFICULTY IN HELPING BARD -TO -SERVE CLIENTS TO OVERCOME MULTIPLE
BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT. BY ADOPTING EDUCATIONAL COMPETENCIES AS
A POSITIVE OUTCOME, AND INCREASIEG THE CLIENTS ELIGIBILITY WAIVER
FROM 10% TO 15t WE BELIEVE LOCAL SERVICE DELIVERY AREAS WILL BE
GREATLY ENCOURAGED TO SERVE MORE CLIENTS WITH MULTIPLE BARRIERS.
-6-
2`.0
120
COMBINED YOUTH PROD A2
WE SUPPORT GIVING INCREASED FLEXIBILITY TO LOCAL AREAS TO
COMBINE ALL YOUTH A(iViTIES IN ONE PROGRAM. THIS WILL ENABLE
SERVICE DELIVERY AREAS TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF YOUTHS IN A MORE
COMPREHENSIVE MANNER. WE ALSO SUPPORT SEPARATE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS FOR IN-SCHOOL AND OUT-OF-SCHOOL YOUTHS. IN-SCHOOL
YOUTHS MUST BE ENCOURAGED TO IMPROVE THEIR BASIC SKILLS AND
COMPLETE SCHOOL. OUT-OF-SCHOOL YOUTHS NEED A WIDER RANGE OF
SERVICES DEPENDING ON THEIR STATUS (i.e., TEEN PARENTS, LACKING
IN READING AND MATH SKILLS, ETC...). ThTREFORE, THEY MUST BE
ENCOURAGED TO MAKE PROGRESSIVE STEPS TOWARDS EMPLOYMENT. THE
PROPOSED CHANGES ARE STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
COMPOSITIO QF 22LE pag
SINCE THE INITIAL DRAFT OF THE BILL, A NUMBER OF CHANGES
HAVE BEEN PROPOSED IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE PRIVATE INDUSTRY
COUNCIL. MANY OF THOSE CHANGES HAVE BEEN DROPPED AND WE
APPRECIATE IT. QUITE FRANKLY, WE BELIEVE THE PRIVATE INDUSTRY
COUNCILS ARE WORKING WELL UNDER CURRENT LAW AND WE WOULD NOT LIKE
TO SEE ANY CHANGES. THE PROPOSED MINIMUM PERCENTAGES FOR LABOR
AND COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS AND FOR PUBLIC AGENCIES WILL
UNDERMINE LOCAL FLEXIBILITY TO APPOINT MEMBERS TO THE PIC THAT
REFLECT COMMUNITY NEEDS.
-7-
125
121
CHALLENGE gang
WE QUESTION THE NEED FOR ANOTHER DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM THAT
WOULD SERVE CLIENTS OUTSIDE THE EXISTING DELIVERY SYSTEM. WE
FEEL THAT TEM ADDITIONAL FUNDS CALLED FOF IN THE BILL COULD BE
BBITz12 USED BY INCREASING ASSISTANCE FOR ADULTS AND YOUTHS IN THZ
EXISTING PROGRAMS. FURTHERMORE, THE MATCHING 50 PERCENT
REQUIREMENT HAS NOT PROVEN TO BE AN EFFECTIVE APPROACH FOR
INCREASING AVAILABLE ASSISTANCE. THE NEW FIVE-YEAR DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM WOULD ALSO OPEN THE DOOR TO DUPLICATION SINCE FUNDS COULD
BE DISTRIBUTED TO A WIDE VARIETY OF AGENCIES OUTSIDE OF THE
EXISTING SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM.
IN SUKIARY MR. CHAIRMAN, WE BELIEVE THE JTPA SYSTEM HAS
ESTABLISHED A SUCCESSFUL TRACK RECORD AND THAT IT COULD BE FINE-
TUNED TO BETTER SERVE TEE MOST NEEDY IN OUR COMMUNITIES. WE
BELIEVE THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS THAT
EXPAND POSITIVE OUTCOMES FOR HARD TO SERVE CLIENTS AND ALLOW
INCREASE EXPENDITURES FOR SUPPORT SERVICES WILL ENCOURAGE GREATER
SERVICE.
THANK YOU FORME OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY AND WE WOULD BE
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
-8-
122
Senator SIMON. Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner. Weappreciate your testimony. I can see you watch those dollars care-fully in your county, and I applaud you for doing that.
Commissioner NORGARD. We are a very conservative countybutwe are a people-to-people county, and I think that is important.That is why we are here. We have to be people-effective and eco-nomic-effective.
Senator SIMON. I appreciate that.Let me ask you this, Mr. Chairman. As you described your PIC
board, it sounds to me like the changes that are suggested here willnot in any way change your board; that you have a pretty rood mixfrom your community. And frankly, our aim is to get tha...ind of amix.
Commissioner NORGARD. I feel very strongly about that, becausewe _have an outstanding PIC committee. And the thing that makesit outstanding is it is not a rubber-stamp board. Everyone hassomething to say. We are there from the education system, we arethere from 3M, we are there from all walks of life. We have gotlabor involved, the educators involved, we have got our veterans in-volved. We have a good mix. And I would say the most importantthing about that mix is that they are not "yes" people; they sitdown and argue and fight and come up with a common sense con-clusion that takes time, but it does happen.
The other thing that I think is important is we have a lot ofyoung people on-that PIC, and we have a lot of old people. So wehave a good mix. We have got people coming from all ends, tryiiigto come up with solutions. And I will tell you, we do come up withsolutions, and the county board shows it by putting in money tokeep it going.
Senator SIMON. Before I ask any further questions, I would notethe presence of one of the most respected members of this body, thesenior Senator from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond.
Senator TirtntmoNn. Oh, thank you very muchI am runningnext year, and I'll bring you down to my State to speak for me.[Laughter.]
But I assure you it is mutual.Senator SIMON. Thank you.Senator THURMOND. We have a very fine chairman. We are from
different parties and frequently go different ways, but we have re-spect for each other, and that is what counts after all.
Senator SIMON. Absolutely.Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for
holding this first in a series of three hearings on the Job TrainingPartnership Act. It is a pleasure for me to serve as the incomingRanking Member of the Sulzecnimittee on Employment and Pro-ductivity, and I welcome the opportunity to work with you and theother members of the subcommittee on this important legislation.
During the 101st Congress, this subcommittee will be exploringissues that will greatly influence policies relating to the employ-ment and training needs of our Nation. I am confident thatthrough bipartisan cooperation, the members of this subcommitteewill be able to support legislation that will serve to continue thetrend of unprecedented economic growth which our country has ex-perienced over the last six years.
127
123
Mr. Chairman, the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 estab-lished a unique system in which Government and private industryhave united to provide job training programs for unskilled and eco-nomically disadvantaged Americans. Through participation in theJTPA, an underprivileged segment of our population has been ableto enter the work force as productive citizens.
Since the JTPA became fully operational on October 1, 1983, thisinitiative has become one of the principal means of addressing em-ployment problems among our country's disadvantaged youth andadults, as well as our disloCated workers.
The JTPA is based on the principle that public and private coali-tions can successfully address problems that in the past had beenconsidered to be solely within the authority of theGovernment.
Unlike previous attempts by the Federal Government to providetraining and employment programs, the JTPA allows for majorparticipation from State and local governments; places emphasis ontraining rattter than on income support or subsidized employment,with the exception of a limited amount for youth; and requires thatall programs be held accountable through a system of mandatoryperformance starl&rds.
However, the key to the success of the JTPA has been the in-volvement of business and industry in its administration. Through600 Private Industry Councils (PIC's), representatives of the busi-ness community have provided policy guidance and oversight forlocal job training programs along with representatives from educa-tional agencies, organized labor, rehabilitation agencies, communi-ty-based organizations, economic development agencies, and thepublic employment service.
Under the present law, a majority of PIC members and the chair-man must be representatives of the private sector. I believe that itis necessary for business to retain this position in any revisionsthat may be made in the JTPA.
It is important to note that the Departments of Labor has ob-served that PICs have brought the discipline of the marketplace toemployment and training programs. They also have enhanced theeffectiveness of such programs as well as restored their image asappropriate tools for addressing major economic and social issues.
The JTPA has developed an outstanding record of achievement.However, due to changes in the marketplace, review of this initia-tive and the basic principles on which it is grounded, has beencalled for. Senator Simon has devoted much time and effort to de-veloping legislation that would modify the JTPA.
Also, the Department of Labor through its JTPA Advisory Com-mittee has conducted an in-depth study and is expected to releaseits findings next week. I am looking forward to reviewing this in-formation and carefully considering the proposals that are beingbrought forth by the chairman of our subcommittee, as well asthose of the Administration.
Mr. Chairman, while my schedule will not permit me to bepresent for the entire hearing, because we are having a POW occa-sion in the Rotunda of the Capitol, therefore, I must get back forthat. We are all interested in our POWs, and we honor them fortheir service to their country. However, I will review the testimonythat is presented in my absence at a later date.
lf) (CI)fe,
124
Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you of my full cooperation in ef-forts done to help the people for whom this Act was passedthedisadvantaged, the economically disadvantaged, some of whom areuneducatedwe must do all that we can to help these people, and Ishall cooperate to that end.
Thank you.Senator SimoN. Thank you very, very much, Senator Thurmond.
We appreciate your statement.In his statement, he mentioned that the Department of Labor
has an Advisory Committee that is going to be making recommen-dations. I will be meeting shortly with the new Secretary of Labor,Liddy Dole, to discuss with her where we go on this. My hope isthat we can move in a direction that is a constructive one for ev-eryone.
Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, may I just say a word? Iwould just say that I join with you in welcoming Mayor Abramsonand Commissioner Norgard. We are very pleased to have you gen-tlemen here, and I am sure your statements will constitute a finecontribution to this hearing.
Senator SIMON. We thank you for being here. Unfortunately, weget drawn from one meeting to another; you two are riot unfamil-iar with that.
Let me just add to the discussion on the composition of the PICs.What we are interested in is apparently the very thing you have,so that we get a sufficient mix of groups involved in the PIC. Weare particularly anxious, for example, to have vocational educatorsbecome involvedas a former teacher, you can appreciate thisthat we should be meshing those programs with the needs in thecommunity.
Another reality is we would like to get more people, frankly, pro-moting the JTPA program, so that we can make that pie a littlelarger as you were suggesting, Mr. Mayor.
One of the things that you mentioned in your stLyement, MayorAbramson, is the problems you are having at the State level interms of responsiveness to urban situations. Are there changes inthe legislation that could effectively deal with that, or what do yourecommend in that regard?
Mayor ABRAMSON. Well, I guess there are a couple ways youcould look at it. Our first request would be that the program itselfbe a partnership between the local Government and the FederalGovernment. As I said, the folk heroes of the past used to talk a lotabout partnerships between the Federal and the local Govern-ments. We would like to see that revisited again.
I say that only because I had an opportunity the other day tomeet with one of your colleagues; there were about eight or nineruayors sitting around, and he was going through the different pro-grams that yuu all have provided the cities, dealing with drugissues, dealing with housing issues, dealing with the homeless, etcetera, and his question to us was focused on how quickly have youreceived these specific funds. And there was no question from theeight of us sitting around the tablethe Mayor of Philadelphia,myself, the Mayor of Phoenix, the Mayor of Seattle, the Mayor ofLittle Rock, the Mayor of Birmingham and the Mayor of Provi-dence, Rhode Islandthat the McKinney Act, for example, which
125
went directly to citieswe have all put up walls, put up roofs, setup health care facilities, create shelters and food immediately be-cause the funds went directly to us. The drug funds that came toWashington and the funds that were focused in other areas thatwent through the State, most if not all of us in each case were stillwaiting.
So our first desire, if we could ever revisit that issue again, is torecreate the Federal-local partnership. However, if that is not a re-ality in the year 1989, we certainly hope that there will be somefocus on either direction in the bill or-the regulations promulgatedthereunder that would require certain things to occur in a timeframei.e., we should get our funds, or our allocations should bemade within 30 days or something of that nature. And also, as Isaid, we get the Title II-A and II-B funds coming in, but the dislo-cated worker funds, our State has chosen in the way they are im-plementing it not to provide any funds for the urban area of Louis-ville, the largest city in the Commonwealth, and the funds arebeing divvied out elsewhere throughout the Commonwealth. The 8percent funds for educationwe did not receive those within ourcommunity.
It seems to me that there does not need to be a dislocated work-ers office opened by the State in the outskirts of Louisville tohandle that issue, and the PIC is over here with all of their servicegroups handling this issue; we have got the whole issue of welfarenow coming up, and who is going to handle the job training dimen-sion of the welfare bill once you get daycare and welfare opportuni-ties all together. It has got to be focused, in my judgment, in onelocation, under one umbrella, in a coordinated effort.
And the PIC, which is not an institution, which is not carryingthe banner of anything other than being a "glue" to bond every-body together, is a perfect place for that to occur.
Senator SIMON. Well, I like the "glue" analogy. What a arereally talking about, then, is primarily a time factor but alsu some-what an allocation factor.
Mayor ABRAMSON. I would hope the allocation would be first. Butpeople keep telling me that those days are gone. So I would stepback and say the time factor in terms of how quickly what gets tous will get to us, and then at the State level, if you will write insomething that, when you give it to the State, allocates so much tothe heavily-unemployed areas which are cities, the urban areas ofour States, it would be most helpful.
Senator SIMON. Commissioner, which do you prefer, "Commis-sioner" or "Mr. Chairman"?
Commissioner NORGARD. Whatever you want.Senator SIMON. All light. You sound like a "whatever you want"
guy, and I appreciate that.Do you have a problem with the State and-Commissioner NORGARD. No, we do not have that problem. We
are pretty much a community-oriented system, and we workthrough human services system in our county. We do get togetherwith the State, and we are joining forces, two counties get togetherin different programs. We are able to do that, but that money ishanded down locally. Our problem is to get our own bureaucracy,
-13 097-712 - 89 - 5
126
our own groups in the county, to get together and say how we aregoing to do this. But we are doing a pretty good job of that.
Senator SIMON. And you do not sense any delay from the Statein getting the money to you.
Commissioner NORGARD. No. Our State works with the locallevel. That is why our county board is so involved. We are outthere, after everything we can get, and we are first in line.
Senator SIMON. Well, you are not unusual in that, I have to tellyou, Mr. Chairman.
We thank you both for your testimony and your leadership. ouhave helped us. Let me just add, as you go back to Louisville andMinnesota, if you think of other specific suggestions before wemark up this bill, we would appreciate those specific suggestionsyou might have.
Commissioner NORGARD. You do not have to worry about that.Mayor ABRAMSON. Thank you very much.Senator SIMON. All right. Thank you very, very much.Our final panel includes Mr. Elton Jolly, President and Chief Ex-
ecutive Officer of Opportunities Industrialization Centers, andArturo Vazquez, Director of the Mayor's Office of Employment andTraining in Chicago.
We are very happy to have you here. And Mr. Jolly, I assumeyou work with Reverend Sullivan quite a bit, and you give him mygreetings.
STATEMENTS OF ELTON JOLLY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECU-TIVE OFFICER, OPPORTUNITIES INDUSTRIALIZATION CENTERSOF AMERICA, PHILADELPHIA, PA; AND ARTURO VAZQUEZ, DI-RECTOR, MAYOR'S OFFICE OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING,CHICAGO, ILMr. JOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a reasonable assump-
tion. I do work for him. He is my boss.I want to thank you for this opportunity.Senator SIMON. And I thank you for being here. We look forward
to hearing from you now, Mr. Jolly.Mr. JOLLY. I am hr -e representing the Opportunities Industriali-
zation Centers of America, to offer comments on proposed amend-ments to the Job Training Partnership Act, JTPA.
Reverend Sullivan sends his regrets that he could not be withyou today. He is recovering from an illness, and his doctors toldhim last week that it was too soon for him to travel to Washington.
He and the OICs of America thank you, Senator Simon, and theother members of this committee for your continued leadership inthe development of a comprehensive, aggressive, targeted employ-ment and training policy.
I would like to make some general recommendations regardingfuture directions of JTPA. JTPA should be more targeted. It shouldfocus resources on the 27 milliou illiterates. It should educate andtrain the almost one million youth who drop out of school eachyear. Provisions should be made to help the teen parent.
The members of teenage gangs, which are becoming violent andmore involved in elicit drug marketing and distribution must be of-fered alternatives.
131
127
The older worker, who has been idled by changes in the economyor technology must be re-educated and retrained.
We must work with long-term welfare recipients if we are toreduce their dependency. Provision of jobs to them is the key.
We are at risk of creating in America a permanent underclass,which is unacceptable to me and can put our democracy and econo-my at risk.
JTPA should allocate funds to communities which are most inneed. Some way must be found to target more resources to theseareas. JTPA should consider holding the existing allocations harm-less and allocating significant additional resources to those c xswhere the need is greatest.
Among the factors used in allocating JTPA dollars, the numof economically disadvantaged in an area will target funds to tho:most in need. It is critical for youth because the young people mostin need have little or no attachment to the labor force.
We must improve our systems of accountability to assure thatthose in need are receiving services which they need to become pro-ductive and self-sufficient.
The partnerships which have been developed under JTPA are asignificant accomplishment. Let's build on these new constructiverelationships between business and Gwiernment.
The role of the community-based organizations is also vital in theplanning and delivery of employment and training services. Now isthe time to invest in building the capacity of CBOs.
We need to continue to train our boards of directors and othervolunteers. Our staff needs increased skills and exposure to thebenefits of harnessing the power of the new technology.
We recognize we cannot train people to be productive workers onobsolete machines. OIC and other CBOs need funds to invest inmodern equipment and learning tools.
The 15 percent cap on administrative costs under JTPA hassqueezed all nonprofit organizations. We do not have the funds tosupport the administration of JTPA grants. Contracts must allowmore funding and a higher margin of error for serving people withmore serious barriers to employment.
There must be a system to share risk and reward agencies whichchoose to serve those most in need. That is real accountability.
We have some comments to make on the proposed legislation,Senator.
The definition of community-based organization has beenchanged, and I fear that the elimination of names from the defini-tion will mean that we are once again ignored in some areas. Wefought a long, long time to be included, and I would hate for us tolose that advantage and that continued opportunity.
The provision that Private Industry Councils have 17 percentmembership from CBOs and unions, in my judgment, is progress.Both need to be represented. The legislation needs to assure thatboth labor and CBOs are equitably represented. We must assurethat CBOs which have demonstrated their effectiveness are givendue consideration.
I enthusiastically support your amendment to target services toareas of greatest need by changing the finding formula. We willsupport 100 percent for this factor. I must raise a concern that we
132
128
are now using 1979 figures, and we will be using them until 1992when the next Census is complete.
The youth formula is even more difficult. It seems to me that thesecond tier of your allocation formula, 50 percent economically dis-advantaged and 50 percent relative numbers residing in areas withsubstantial economically disadvantaged youth, will target servicesbest.
I would also recommend that priority of service be given to youthwith specific deficiencies: dropouts, illiterates, youth functioningmore than one level below grade and in school, teen parents, andyouth who are out of school and have never been in the labor force.
The Youth Opportunity Challenge Grant should be supported.Cooperative agreements are essential. We must find a way toassure that Challenge Grants go to communities with the greatestchallenge. What happens if a major city with most of the at-riskyouth cannot match the Federal funds due to a budget deficit? Wemust find language to focus the Challenge Grant program on areaswith greatest need.
Finally, I support any increase in funding, recognizing that withthe authorization we presently have, we only serve somewhere be-
tween 7 and 10 percent of those who really need the services.I want to thank you for this opportunity to share OIC's experi-
ence and expertise. I thank the committee for its leadership andpledge OIC's support for any legislation which will help us trainthe poor and unemployed for jobs and for self-sufficiency.
Senator SIMON. Thank you very much, Mr. Jolly.[The prepared statement of Mr. Jolly follows:]
133
129
TESTIMONY OF ELTON JOLLYPRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OICS OF AMERICA
before the
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY SUBCOMMITTEEof the
SENATE LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE
MARCH 9_, 1989
I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY,REPRESENTING THE OPPORTUNITIES INDUSTRIALI7ATION CENTERS OFAMERICA TO OFFER COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE JOBTRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT (JTPA). REV. SULLIVAN SENDS HISREGRETS THAT HE COULD NOT BE WITH YOU TODAY. HE ISRECOVERING FROM AN ILLNESS AND HIS DOCTORS TOLD HIM LASTWEEK THAT IT WAS TOO SOON FOR HIM TO TRAVEL TO WASHINGTON.HE WANTED ME TO ASSURE YOU THAT HE WILL SOON BE BACK AT FULLSTRENGTH AND WILL CONTINUE TO LEAD OICS OF AMERICA TOWARDITS MISSION OF HELPING THE POOR AND UNEMPLOYED TO HELPTHEMSELVES TO BECOME SELF SUFFIC:ENT WORKERS.
OIC THANKS SENATOR SIMON AND THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THISCOMMITTEE FOR YOUR CONTINUED LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENTOF A COMPREHENSIVE, AGGRESSIVE, TARGETED EMPLOYMENT ANDTRAINING POLICY. I WILL TESTIFY TODAY ABOUT OIC AND SOME OFOUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS, SOME GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE JOBTRAINING pARTOERSHIP ACT AND SOME SPECIFIC COMMENTS ABOUTTHE AMENDMENTS WHICH ARE BEING PROPOSED BY SENATOR SIMON.
OIC WAS FOUNbED 25 YEARS AGO BY LEON SULLIVAN IN AN OLD JAILHOUSE IN NORTH PHILADELPHIA. OUR MOTTO IS, "WE HELPOURSELVES" AND WE ARE PROUD OF THE FACT THAT OICS HAVESERVED MORE THAN 1 MILLION PEOPLE NATIONWIDE. WE HAVEGOTTEN JOBS FOR PEOPLE WHO WERE UNEMPLOYED AND HAD LOSTHOPE. WE HAVE HELPED ILLITERATES TO READ, WRITE ANDCOMPUTE. WE HAVE INCREASED JOB RELATED SKILLS AND IN THEPROCESS HAVE INCREASED THE PRODUCTIVITY OF THESE WORKERS ANDTHE EMPLOYERS FOR WHOM THEY WORK.
LAST YEAR, OICS OF AMERICA ASKED THE SUN COMPANY TO DO ASTUDY OF THE IMPACT OF OICS TRAINING AND THEY REPORTED THEFOLLOWING:- OIC HAS TRAINED ONE LLION PEOPLE IN 25 YEARS.MOST OF THESE PEOPLE RE WORKING TODAY.
- THE ESTIMATED EARNIN.,4 OF THESE NEARLY ONE MILLION WORKERSIN 1988 WERE $20 BILLION.
- THEY PAID NEARLY 3 BILLION DOLLARS IN TAXES IN 1988.
Page - 1
13x.
130
OIC HAS MORE THAN RETURNED THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DOLLARS
WHICH HAVE BEEN INVESTED IN PEOPLE THROUGH OIC. THE S3BILLION IN TAXES PAID BY FORMER OIC ENROLLEES IN 1983 IS
MORE THAN 75% OF THE JTPA BUDGET. OIC IS BUT ONE PART OFTHE PARTNERSHIP OF BUSINESS, INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT ANDLONMUNITy BASED ORGANIZATIONS WHICH COMPRISE THE EMPLOYMEN-
AND TRAINING SYSTEM. WITH ADEQUATE RESOURCES, OIC COULDINCREASE ITS CAPACITY AND PREPARE MORE PEOPLE TO BE MORE
PRODUCTIVE.
OIC WAS BORN DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS ERA TO CORRECTINEOUITIES AND PREPARE PEOPLE .0 PARTICIPATE FULLY ANDEQUITABLY IN THE BENEFITS OF OUR GREAT AMERICAN ECONOMY.TODAY OIC IS SHIFTING GEARS AND ALTERING SYSTEMS TO HELPPEOPLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE GROWING ECONOMY. OIC TRAINSPEOPLE TO BE PRODUCTIVE WORKERS WHICH IS ESSENTIAL FOR OURECONOMY TO BECOME MORE COMPETITIVE IN A WORLD ECONOMY.THOUGH DISCRIMINATION STILL EXISTS, 'rWO DECADES OF DILIGENCEAND THE INCREASED DEMAND FOR SKILLED WORKERS HAVE BROKEN
DOWN MANY OF THESE ARTIFICIAL BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT.
OICS EXPERIENCES WITH THE JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT ARE
MIXED. IN 1981 THERE WERE 145 OICS FUNDED FOR MORE THAN$100 MILLION DOLLARS. IN 1988, THERE WERE 70 OICS WITHFUNDING CF LESS THAN $40 MILLION. THE 70 OICS ARE RUNNINGGCOD PROGRAMS AND OFFERING OPPORTUNITY TO THOUSANDS OF
PEOPLE. OICS ARE ALSO RECEIVING MORE FUNDS FROM OTHERGOVERNMENT SOURCES AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR. HOWEVER, THEREDUCTION IN FUNDING FOR EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING AND THEEARLY JTPA TRACK RECORD OF SERVING FEWER HARD TO SERVEPERSONS CAUSED MANY OICS TO LOOK FOR OTHER SOURCES OF
FUNDING.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES_AND_RECOMMENDATIONS
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME GENERAL RECOMMENCATIONS REGARDING
FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF JTPA. THESE COME FROM MY EXPERIENCEWITH OICS, CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER COMMUNITY BASEDORGANIZATIONS AND MY PARTICIPATION AS A MEMBER OF THESECRETARY OF LABOR'S JTPA ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
1. JTPA SHOULD BE MORE TARGETED TO PEOPLE WITH MULTIPLE
PROBLEMS.
A. WE MUST FOCUS RESOURCES ON THE 27 MILLION ILLITERATESWHO CANNOT HOPE TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR EVE:, MORE COMPLEXLABOR MARKET.
B. We MUST EDUCATE AND TRAIN THE ALMOST ONE MILLION YOUTH
WHO DPUPOUT OF SCHOOL EACH YEAR.
C. WE MUST HELP THE TEEN PARENT TO BE BOTH A MORE SKILLED
PARENT AND A PRODUCTIVE WORKER.
Page - 2
135
131
D. THE MEMBERS OF TEENAGE GANGS WHICH ARE BECOMING MOREVIOLENT AND MORE INVOLVED IN ILLICIT DRUG MARKETING ANDDISTRIBUTION MUST BE OFFERED ALTERNATIVES.
E. THE OLDER WORKER WHO HAS BEEN IDLED BY CHANGES IN THEECONOMY OR TECHNOLOGY MUST BE RE-EDUCATED AND RE-TRAINED.(THE WORKER ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM (EDWAA) SHOULD SERVE MOST OFTHIS POPULATION.)
F. WE MUST WORK WITH LONG TERM WELFARE RECIPIENTS, IF WEARE TO REDUCE DEPENDENCE. (THE JOBS PROGRAM CF THE FAMILYSECURITY ACT AND JOBS FOR DEPENDENT INDIVIDUALS (JEDI)SHOULD SERVE MANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS.)
G. FINALLY, WE ARE AT RISK OF CREATING A PERMANENTUNDERCLASS WHICH IS UNACCEPTABLE TO ME AND CAN PUT OURDEMOCRACY AND ECONOMY AT RISK.
TARGETING SCARCE RESOURCES TO THOSE MOST IN NEED ISDIFFICULT. IT HEARS THAT WE MUST DENY JTPA SERVICES TOPEOPLE WITH LESS SEVERE PROBLEMS. WHEN AUTHORIZED FUNDS CANONLY SERVE 7'3 OF THE ELLGIBLE POPULATION, CHOICES MUST BEMADE AND I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT INVESTMENT TO THOSE WHO AREMOST IN NEED. I KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE THAT MOST OF THEHARDEST TO SERVE HAVE LOST HOPE AND WILL BE EXCLUDED UNLESSWE REACH OUT TO THEM.
2. JTPA SHOULD ALLOCATE FUNDS TO COMMUNITIES WHICH ARE MOSTIN NEED. FORTUNATELY, MANY PARTS OF OUR COUNTR'. ARE SPAREDMANY OF THESE PROBLEMS. OUR MAJOR URBAN CENTERS HAVE THEHEAVIEST CONCENTRATIONS OF LONG TERM UNEMPLOYED AND RURALAREAS WITH STAGNANT ECONOMIES SHARE THE SAME PROBLEMS. SOMEWAY MUST BE FOUND TO TARGET MORE RESOURCES TO THESE AREAS.IF MORE FUNDS ARE TO GO TO AREAS WITH GREATEST NEED, WE AREGOING TO HAVE TO INCREASE OUTLAYS OR REDUCE FUNDING TO OTHERAREAS. PLEASE CONSIDER HOLDING THE EXISTING ALLOCATIONSHARMLESS AND ALLOCATING SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TOTHOSE AREAS WHERE THE NEED IS GREATEST.
AMONG THE FACTORS USED IN ALLOCATING JTPA DOLLARS, THENUMBER OF ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED IN AN AREA WILL TARGETFUNDS TO THOSE HOST IN NEED. IF T'IIS IS TRUE FOR THE ADULTPOPULATION, IT IS CRITICAL FOR YOUTH BECAUSE THE YOUNGPEOPLE MOST IN NEED HAVE LITTLE OR NO ATTACHMENT TO THELABOR FORCE. THEREFOR UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES IGNORE THEIREXISTENCE.
3. WE MUST IMPROVE OUR SYSTEMS OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO ASSURETHAT THOSE MOST IN NEED ARE RECEIVING SERVICES WHICH THEYNEED TO BECOME PRODUCTIVE AND SELF-SUFFICIENT. LET'S LEARNFROM OUR RECENT HISTORY AND PRECLUDE THE JTPA SYSTEM FROMUSING ACCOUNTABILITY AS AN EXCUSE FP)M SERVING THOSE FORWHOM SUCCESS IS PROBABLE.
Page - 3
136
132
4. THE PARTNERSHIPS WHICH HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED UNDER THE JTPAARE A SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENT. LET'S BUILD ON THESE NEWCONSTRUCTIVE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENTTO ASSURE THAT TRAINING IS GEARED TO REAL JOBS AND THAT THEEMPLOYERS ARE GETTING SKILLED WORKERS WHO WILL INCREASEPRODUCTIVITY. JTPA HAS TRULY INVOLVED OUR CORPORATEPARTNERS AND WE MUST SUSTAIN AND INCREASE THE LEVEL OFEMPLOYER INVOLVEMENT. LET'S FOCUS THE PARTNERS ON SERVINGPEOPLE, IMPROVING DELIVERY SYSTEMS, CREATING NEW PROGRAMSAND IMPROVING OUR LIMITED RESOURCES. WE URGE THAT THEPARTNERS WORK WITH OIC, OTHER CBOS AND SERVICE DELIVERERS INTHE CLASSROOM AND AT THE PROGRAM SITES TO IMPROVE OURSERVICES.
5. THE FEBRUARY 16, 1989 WASHINGTON POST CARRIED AN ARTICLEBY JOAN PADDOCK MAXWELL AND RICHARD W. SNOWDEN OF THECOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF GREATER WASHINGTON, ENTITLED "SIEGEOF THE NONPROFITS." THE ARTICLE'S THESIS IS THAT AT A TIMEWHEN NONPROFITS ARE LOOKED TO FOR HELP, THEIR WEAKENED STATEMAY LIMIT THEIR ABILITY TO RESPOND. OIC IS CERTAINLY WEAKERTHAN IT WAS 10 YEARS AGO AND OUR PROBLEMS PARALLEL THOSE OFOTHER NONPROFITS.
A. THERE IS LESS GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR HUMAN SERVICESIN GENERAL AND EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING IN PARTIQULAR.
B. INCREASED SOCIAL PROBLEMS HEIGHTEN COMPETITION FORSCARCE DOLLARS AND NECESSITATE AN INCREASED EFFORT BY OICSIN RAISING FUNDS AND WRITING PROPOSALS WHICH REDUCESRESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR JOB TRAINING EFFORTS.
C. FINALLY BOTH OUR VOLUNTEER AND PROFESSIONALLEADERSHIP IS BEING ERODED BY SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FORCES.OICS NEED DEDICATED VOLUNTEERS AND STAFF, BUT THE REWARDSARE LESS THAN IN BOTH PRIVATE INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT ANDMANY OF OUR MOST SKILLED PROFESSIONALS HAVE LEFT FOR JOBSWHICH MAKE IT EASIER TO MEET THE MORTGAGE AND PAY COLLEGETUITION.
6. THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS IS ALSO VITALIN THE PLANNING AND DELIVERY OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAININGSERVICES. WE MUST ALSO ASSURE THAT CRITICAL SERVICESOFFERED BY CBOS ARE MAINTAINED. NOW IS THE TIME TO INVESTIN BUILDING THE CAPACITY OF CBOS.
A. WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO TRAIN OUR BOARDS OF DIRECTORSAND OTHER VOLUNTEERS.
B. OUR STAFF NEEDS INCREASED SKILLS AND EXPOSURE TO THEBENEFITS OF HARNESSING THE POWER OF NEW TECHNOLOGY - WHETHERIT IS USING A COMPUTER TO MANAGE AN OIC OR COMPUTER ASSISTEDINSTRUCTION, THIS INVESTMENT WILL PAY OFF FOR OUR TRAINEES.
C.INFORMATION IS VITAL TO IMPROVING PROGRAM CAPACITYAND OICS OF AMERICA AND ITS AFFILIATES NEED ADDITIONAL
Page - 4
RESOURCES TO TRAIN STAFF, TO PROVIDE THEM WITH LATESTTECHNIQUES OF TRAINING AND TO IMPROVE OUR SERVICES.
D. WE CAN'T TRAIN PEOPLE TO BE PRODUCTIVE WORKERS ONOBSOLETE MACHINES. OIC AND OTHER CBOS NEED FUNDS TO INVESTIN MODERN EQUIPMENT AND LEARNING TOOLS. 30 OICS HAVELEARNING OPPORTUNITES CENTERS WITH SOPHISTICATED COPMPUTYERASSISTED INSTRUCTION. THE SYSTEM IS TRIED AND TESTED. ANADDITIONAL $50,000 PER QIC WOULD BRING THIS PROVEN SYSTEM TOEVERY OIC.
E. THE 15% CAP ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS UNDER JTPA HASSQUEEZED ALL NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. WE DO NOT HAVE THEFUNDS TO SUPPORT THE ADMINISTRATTION OF JTPA GRANTS ANDCONTRACTS AND MOST OF THE 15% GOES TO THE SERVICE DELIVERYAREA ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING.
F. SERVICE TO AT RISK PERSONS REQUIRES A LARGERINVESTMENT OF TIME AND RESOURCES. CONTRACTS MUST ALLOW MOREFUNDING AND A HIGHER MARGIN OF ERROR FOR SERVING PEOPLE WITHMORE SERIOUS BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT. WE NEED A SYSTEM THATCAN RESPOND TO DIFFERING LEVELS OF NEEDS WITH DIFFERINGLEVELS OF INVESTMENT.
7. THE CURRENT JTPA SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM WITH SHORT TERMCONTRACTS, LITTLE SECURITY EVEN FOR PROGRAMS WITH A TRACKRECORD OF PERFORMANCE IS COUNTER PRODUCTIVE FOR OICS ANDMOST SERVICE PROVIDERS. I REGRET THAT SOME 01C3 HAVE CHOSENTO SEEK OTHER FUNDING OPTIONS AND AVOID THE JEOPARDY CAUSEDBY THE ADMINISTRATION OF JTPA IN SOME AREAS. FEDERALLEGISLATION LEAVES THE RELATIONSHIP WITH SERVICE PROVIDERSTO THE STATES AND SDAS AND TOO MANY UTILIZE SHORT TERMPERFORMANCE CONTRAC-S WHICH PLACE AN OIC IN JEOPARDY FORTAKING A RISK ON PEOPLE WHO ARE HARD TO SERVE. OUR STAFFHAS LITTLE JOB SECURITY. THERE MUST BE A SYSTEM TO SHARERISK AND REWARD AGENCIES WHICH CHOOSE TO SERVE THOSE MOST INNEED. THAT'S REAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
COMMENTS ON THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY SENATOR SIMON
NOW, I HAVE A FEW SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE JTPAAMENDMENTS INTRODUCED BY SENATOR SIMON.
1. THE DEFINITION OF COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATION HAS BEENCHANGED AND THAT COULD CREATE A PROBLEM FOR OIC AND OTHERCBOS. THE LANGUAGE IN JTPA WHICH IDENTIFIES SPECIFICORGANIZATIONS LIKE OIC AS CBOS WAS WRITTEN TO ASSURE THAT WERECEIVE DUE CONSIDERATION. I FEAR THAT ELIOINATION OF NAMESFROM THE DEFINITION WILL MEAN THAT WE ARE ONCE AGAIN IGNOREDIN SOME AREAS. I WOULD WELCOME A TIGHTENING OF THEDEFINITION OF CBO, ESPECIALLY IF IT SPECIFIED THAT CBOS HAVEA BOARD OF DIRECTORS WITH A MAJORITY WHICH REPRESENTS THENEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY THAT IT SERVES. THERE IS EVIDENCETHAT THE CBO DEFINITION NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. JUST LAST YEARLAWYERS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RULED THAT PRIVATEINDUSTRY COUNCILS COULD QUALIFY AS CBOS UNDER THE CARL
134
PERKINS ACT. PICS ARE VALUABLE INSTITUTIONS, BUT THEY ARENOT CEOS.
2. THE PROVISION THAT PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCILS HAVE 17%MEMBERSHIP FROM CBOS AND UNIONS IS PROGRESS. HOWEVER, WEARE EACH VITAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMMUNITY WHICH ARENOT INTERCHANGEABLE. BOTH NEED TO BE REPRESENTED. THELEGISLATION NEEDS TO ASSURE THAT BOTH LABOR AND CBOS AREEQUITABLY REPRESENTED ON PICS AND STATE JOB TRAININGCOORDINATING COUNCILS. WE MUST ALSO ASSURE THAT CBOS WHICHHAVE DEMONSTRATED THEIR EFFECTIVENESS ARE GIVEN DUECONSIDERATION.
3. I ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORT YOUR AMENDMENT TO TARGETSERVICES TO AREAS OF GREATEST NEED BY CHANGING THE FUNDINGFORMULA. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE ECONOMICALLYDISADVANTAGED FACTOR WILL PUT MONEY IN AREAS OF GREATESTHARDSHIP. I WOULD SUPPORT 100% FOR THIS FACTOR. HAVINGSAID THAT, I MUST RAISE A CONCERN THAT WE ARE NOW USING 1979FIGURES AND WE WILL BE USING THEM UNTIL 1992 WHEN THE NEXTCENSUS IS COMPLETE. I URGE YOU TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS SO THATDATA IS AVAILABLE AND RELIABLE TO ALLOCATE FUNDS TO AREAS OFNEED.
4. THE YOUTH FORMULA IS EVEN MORE DIFFICULT. UNEMPLOYEDYOUTH STATISTICS ARE POOR INDICATORS BECAUSE YOUTH MOST INNEED HAVE SPORADIC OR NO ATTACHMENT TO THE LABOR FORCE.AGAIN. ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED IS THE FACTOR WHICH WILLTARGET FUNDS BEST. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE SECOND TIER OFYOUR ALLOCATION FORMULA, 50% ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED AND50% RELATIVE NUMBERS RESIDING IN AREAS WITH SUBSTANTIALECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED YOUTH WILL TARGET SERVICES BEST.
5. THERE IS AN ISSUE RELATED TO THE FORMULA. HOW DO WEASSURE THAT FUNDS ARE USED TO NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN AN SDAWITH HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF POOR YOUTH OR ADULTS? MANYINNER CITY NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO QUALIFY AS ANSDA, BUT THEY ARE NOT POLITICAL JURISDICTIONS. FUNDS FORRESIDENTS OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS GO TO THE SDA FOR THE TOTALPOLITICAL JURISDICTION AND OFTEN THE POOREST COMMUNITIES GETLESS THAN THEIR ENTITLEMENT.
6. I WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND THAT PRIORITY OF SERVICE BE GIVENTO YOUTH WITH SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES: DROPOUTS, ILLITERATES,YOUTH FUNCTIONING MORE THAN ONE LEVEL BELOW GRADE AND INSCHOOL, TEEN PARENTS, AND YOUTH WHO ARE OUT OF SCHOOL ANDJAVE NEVER BEEN IN THE LABOR FORCE.
7. THE FAIR CHANCE: YOUTH OPPORTUNITY CHALLENGE GRANT HASMANY INNOVATIVE FEATURES mitCH SHOULD BE SUPPORTED.COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS ARE ESSENTIAL. CASE MANAGEMENT, IFIT IS DEMAND DRIVEN AND RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS OF YOUTH ANDEMPLOYERS, IS AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO DELIVER SERVICES.OUTREACH AND RECRUITMENT ARE VITAL TO TARGETING AND SERVING
Page - 6
.139 .
135
YOUTH MOST IN NEED. MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT WE MUST FIND AWAY TO ASSURE THAT CHALLENGE GRANTS GO TO COMMUNITIES WITHTHE GREATEST CHALLENGE. WHAT HAPPENS IF A MAJOR CITY WITHMOST OF THE AT RISK YOUTH CAN'T MATCH THE FEDERAL FUNDS DUETO A BUDGET DEFICIT? WHAT HAPPENS IF A POLITICAL DECISIONPUTS THE FUNDS IN COMMUNITY WITH A MUCH SMALLER POPULATIONOF HARD TO SERVE YOUTH? WE MUST FIND LANGUAGE TO FOCUS THE"CHALLENGE GRANT" PROGRAM ON AREAS WITH GREATEST NEED.
8. I HAVE RESERVATIONS ABOt'T THE AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE"WINDOW" FOR SERVING YOUTH WHO DO NOT MEET ELIGIBILIT7YSTANDARDS TO 15%. THE 10% WINDOW HAS NOT BEEN USED IN JTPAAND JTPA IS SERVING BUT A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THOSE IN NEED.PLEASE LET'S NOT RELAX THE TARGETING PROVISIONS UNLESS THEFUNDING IS INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY.
9. FINALLY, I SUPPORT ANY INCREASE IN FUNDING. WE JUSTDON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO HELP PEOPLE IN NEED AND BECOMETHE INSTITUTION WHICH WILL HELP PREPARE THE HUMAN RESOURCESTHAT OUR ECONOMY NEEDS TO BECOME COMPETITIVE AND MOREPRODUCTIVE.
THAN) YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE OICS EXPERIENCE ANDEXPERTISE. I THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR ITS LEADERSHIP ANDPLEDGE OICS SUPPORT FOR ANY LEGISLATION WHICH WILL HELP USTRAIN THE POOR AND UNEMPLOYED FOR JOBS AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY.
Page - 7
136
Senator &mom. Mr. Vazquez, we welcome you, particularly sinceyou are from the State of Illinois, and let me just add becausethere is some uncertainty in Chicago these days about what isgoing to happen in the future, I want to personally express my ap-preciation for the leadership you have been giving in the City ofChicago.
Mr. VAMTEZ. Thank you very much, Senator Simon.I am here to testify replacing our chairman, Daryl Grisham, who
was scheduled to be here today, but was called away on an emer-gency at the last minute. But he wanted me to express to you thePrivate Industry Councils' appreciation for your leadership in thisarea, in very complex issues, and making the changes in the JTPAsystem that would make a stronger and bolder commitment to re-solving the problems of the Nation's disadvantaged.
So I really do thank you for the opportunity to be here and foryour kind words.
Job training programs in Chicago face a condition of scarce re-sources and pervasive needs. This condition makes a compellingcase to pursue the theiues which you have introduced in amendingthe JTPA legislation.
Our comments on the most recent proposed amendments toJTPA flow from the local perspective on employment and trainingprograms. This perspective emphasizes: (1) an orientation of thePrivate Industry Council toward expanding the Government-busi-ness partnership that is at the heart of JTPA; (2) the targeting ofservices to minorities, welfare recipients and other groups most inneed; (3) a continuing concern about funding levels for job trainingprograms in urban areas that have been hardhit by recessions ofthe 1970s and early 1980s and which are the home to large andconcentrated numbers of the Nation's poor and unemployed, and(4) the need for an administrative structure embodied in the legis-lation that facilitates local program management efforts.
First of all, in addressing the themes in the amendments thatyou are introducing, expanding the PIC partnership is a very posi-tive direction. Partnership has been an essential element in Chica-go since the initiation of JTPA.
Operationally, the challenge is how to implement a process forwider partizilv.tion of labor and its representatives, but does notweaken the gains that have been achieved in many localitiesthrough predominant private sector participation. While the specif-ics might be problematic in some areas, I am supportive of theeffort to bring others into the job training partnership.
Secondly, an uncompromised focus on the disadvantaged andhard-to-serve should be preserved and reemphasized. Unfortunate-ly, I think some provisions of the proposed amendments compro-mise focusnamely, the increase in the proportion of nondisadvap-taged that can be served from 10 percent to 15 percent, and thecreation of a nonperformance-based segment of the program re-served for the hard-to-serve. I do not support either of these provi-sions. These groups should be the focus of our efforts. Exceptionsand reserves detract from our primary purpose.
The third theme is closely-related, and it is that clarity in per-formance measurement is paramount. It is essential to be able todocument success program-wide and retain accountability for all
141
137
results. The proposal for nonperformance-based program optionsand for a special set of standards for the hard-to-serve, as well as aseparate set of standards for in-school and out-of-school youth,moves away from this orientation. The measurement system is al-ready overly complex and further delineation will make it evenmore complex and more of a problem for SDAs to really deal with.
There are legitimate concerns that performance standards inhib-it services to the hard-to-serve and most in need. If standards aretoo high in one direction, then we should relax them. In my writ-ten testimony, I point out that the State of Illinois, Department ofCommerce and Community Affairs, has taken some very creativeapproaches in this regard by relaxing the standards related tocosts, raising the threshold for costs, taking that out of the rewardsystem, and allowing the SDAs, then, to be able to address on alonger-term basis, a more costly basis, the needs of the disadvan-taged.
So if SDAs are maximizing results at the expense of the hard-to-serve in order to obtain incentive 'amuses, then we should changethe reward system, as we have done in Illinois, or else eliminate italtogether. The threat of sanctions is in itself a powerful incentive.And we are saying this as an SDA that has consistently exceededper ,rmance standards and reeds, ed substantial bonuses; but wethink it is really important to change the nature of the perform-ance standards to allow us to begin meeting the needs of the disad-vantaged.
The fourth theme I would like to stress is that the allocation for-mula should provide equal focus on unemployment and economichardship, the twin concerns of JTPA. Clearly, the formula provi-sions incorporated into the proposed amendments are moving inthis direction.
However, there are three formula-related items I would like tomention. One, the formula could be strengthened by a provision re-quiring the use of population surveys 'annual average unemploy-ment statistics for those local areas where they are available.
Second; the mechanics of the 50 percent amount allocated en thebasis of the economically disadvantaged youth rate for within-stateTitle II-B formula is unclear, and we would like to m -ke some sug-gestions as to how we Pan clarify that a little bit in the future.
Third, the number of States qualifying for a share of funds underthe definition of "substantial number" appears restrictive.
The fifth and final theme I would like to promote is that theamendments should maintain a straight-forward, SDA-centered de-livery structure. I realize that our approach on this is probably col-ored by the fact that the City of Chicago is an SDA, unlike mostother SDAs in the country. I am concerned about how this particu-lar theme is carried out in the Challenge Grant provisicns. Wewould like to see the administrative mechanisms for the ChallengeGrant implemented within the structure of the SDA so that we donot establish a separate delivery structure, but it gets incorporatedin the national objectives that are represented by the SDA siruc-ture.
142
138
That is the sum of my comments. I want to thank you again forproviding the opportunity for us to share our concerns with you onthis area of vital interest.
Thank you.[The prepared statement of Mr. Grisham, represented by Mr.
Vazquez, follows:
143
139
TESTIMONY OF DARYL GRISHAM
CHAIRMAN, PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF CHIC/GO
TO THE
SUB-COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
UNITED STATES SENATE
MARCH 9, 1989
140
JOB TRAINItG IS AN AREA OF VITAL INTEREST FOR THE CITY OF CHICAGO. OVER
THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS THE CITY HAS TESTIFIED OR SUBMITTED TESTIMONY TO
THE SUB -COWITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY REGARDItG J1PA ON THREE
SEPARATE OCCASSIONS. CHICAGO REMAINS COMMITTED TO ACTIVE PARTICIPATION
IN THE PUBLIC DEBATE ON JOB TRAINItG PROGRAMS.
COMMENTS ON THE MOST RECENT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO J1PA FLOW FROM THE
LOCAL PERTECTIVE ON EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINItG PROGRAMS. THIS PERSPECTIVE
EMPHASIZES:
1. AN ORIENTATION OF THE PRIVATE INDUSTRY
COUNCIL TOWARD EXPANDIIG THE
GOVERNMENT-BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP THAT IS AT
THE HEART OF J1PA.
2. TARGETIM SERVICES TO MINORITIES, WELFARE
RECIPIENTS, AND OTHER GROUPS MOST IN NEED.
3. A CONTINUTIG CONCERN ABOUT FUNDItG LEVELS FOR
JOB TRAINItG PROGRAMS IN URBAN AREAS THAT
HAVE BEEN HARD HIT BY RECESSIONS OF THE
i970'S AND EARLY 1980'S AND MICA ARE THE
HOME TO LARGE AND CONCENTRATED NUMBERS OF THE
NATION'S POOR AND UNUP LOVED.
145
141
4. THE NEED FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE
EMBOOIED IN THE LEGISLATION THAT FACILITATES
LOCAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT EFFORTS.
AS THE FOLLOWING BRIEF SUMMARY DEMONSTRATES, THIS PERSPECTIVE IS REALIZED
IN (!GONG PROGRAM EFFORTS.
THE CITY OF CHICAGO IS THE LARGEST SERVICE DELIVERY AREA IN ILLINOIS AND
ONE OF THE LARGEST IN THE J1PA SYSTEM. WE HAVE ADOPTED A DE-CENTRALIZED
METHOD OF OPERATION IN ORDER TO DRAW ON THE STRENGTHS OF A SERVICE
PROVIDER NEWORK OF TRAINING INSTITUTIONS AND COMMUNITY BASED
ORGANIZATIONS. IN CONCERT WIN ME PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL WE HAVE
EXPANDED THE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT THAT IS PIVOTAL
TO J1PA PROGRAMS TO INCLUDE THE RICH ETHNIC AND RACIAL DIVERSITY OF
CHICAGO'S NEIGHBORHOODS AS WELL AS A BROAD SPECTRUM OF PUBLIC INTERESTS.
THE CITY'S COMMITMENT TO SERVING MINORITIES AND WELFARE RECIPIENTS IS
UNSURPASSED IN ILLINOIS. SINCE THE INCEPTION OF MA OVER 90% OF PROGRAM
PARTICIPANTS HAVE BEEN MINORITIES; MORE THAN HALF OF ALL PARTICIPANTS
HAVE BEEN WELFARE RECIPIENTS.
OUR EFFORTS HA'E BEEN SUCCESSFUL. WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY EXCEEDED
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. IN THE LAST YEAR OVER 11,500 PERSONS WERE PLACED
IN JOBS; ADULTS RECEIVED WAGES AVERP6I10 $5.37 PER HOUR.
1 4' 6
142
HOWEVER, THE LIMIT OH RESOURCES POSES A SERIOUS CONSTRAINT. THE CITY
ABSORBED A 10% REDUCTION IN FUNDS FOR YEAR ROUND ACTIVITIES BEGINNING
LAST JULY. DECREASES IN SUMMER JOBS MONEY HAVE BEEN RELENTLESS. IN THE
FACE OF REDUCTIONS WE ARE MAKING EVERY EFFORT TO UTILIZE AVAILABLE
DOLLARS AND MANAGE MONEY TIGHTLY. LAST YEAR 99% OF THE YEAF ROUND
PROGRAM BUDGET WAS EXPENDED.
THE CONDITION OF SCARCE RESOURCES AND PERVASIVE NEEDS MAKE A COMPELLING
CASE TO PURSUE THE FOLLOWING FIVE THEMES IN AMENDING J1PA LEGISLATION.
FIRST OF ALL, EXPANDING THE PIC PARTNERSHIP IS A POSITIVE DIRECTION.
PARTNERSHIP HAE BEEN AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN CHICAGO SINCE THE INITIATION
OF JiPA. CPERATI.ONALLY, THE CHALLENGE IS HOW TO IMPLEMENT A PROCESS FOR
WIDER PARTICIPATION OF LABOR AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES THAT DOES NOT WEAKEN
THE GAINS THAT AVE BEEN ACHIEVED IN MANY LOCALITIES THROUGH PREDOMINANT
PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION. WHILE THE SPECIFICS MIGHT BE PROBLEMATIC
IN. SOME AREAS, THE EFFORT TO BRIM OTHERS INTO THE JOB TRAINING
PARTNERSHIP IS WORTHY 1,F SUPPORT.
SECONDLY, AN UNCOMPROMISED FOCUS ON THE DISADVANTAGED AND HARD TO SERVE
SHOULD BE PRESERVED AND RE-EMPHASIZED. UNFORTUNATELY, SOME PROVISIONS OF
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS COMPROMISE THIS FOCUS, NAMELY, THE INCREASE IN
THE PROPORTION OF NON-DISADVANTAGED THAT CAN BE SERVED FROM 10% TO 15S
AND THE CREATION OF A NON-PERFORMANCE BASED SEGMENT OF THE PROGRAM
143
RESERVED FOR ME HARD TO SERVE. 'MESE GROUPS SHOULD BE THE FOCUS OF OUR
EFFORTS. EXCEPTIONS AND SET-ASIDES DETRACT FROM OUR PRIMARY PURPOSE.
ME THIRD THEME IS CLOSELY RELATED AND IT IS THAT CLARITY IN PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENT IS PARAMOUNT. IT IS ESSENTIAL TO BE ABLE TO DOCUMENT SUCCESS
PROGRAM WIDE AND TO RETAIN ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ALL RESULTS. ME PROPOSAL
FOR NON-PERFORMANCE BASED PROGRAM OPTIONS AND FOR A SPECIAL SET OF
STANDARDS FOR THE HARD TO SERVE VERSUS ALL OTHERS AS WELL AS 4 :EPARATE
SET OF STANDARDS FOR IN-SCHOOL AND OUT-OF-SCHOOL YOUTH MOVES AWAY FROM
MIS ORIENTATION. J1PA ALREADY HAS STANDARDS FOR ADULTS, ADULT WELFARE
RECIPIENTS, AND YOUTH. THE NUMBER OF STANDARDS HAS INCREASED FROM SEVEN
TO TWELVE THIS YEAR. MEASURES ARE TAKEN B0111 AT TERMINATION AND AT 13
WEEK FOLLOW -LP. IN ILLINOIS, A NEW SYSTEM OF STATE BASED ADJUSTMENT
MODELS HAS JUST BEEN IMPLLunTED. THE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM IS ALREADY
OVERLY COMPLEX. FURTHER DELINEATION WILL MAKE IT POSITIVELY BYZANTINE.
FVRTHERKORE ME AMENDMENTS PROPOSE THAT ME BASIC MEASURE OF PERFORMANCE
FOR ADULT TRAINING PROGRAMS IS THE ACQUISITION OF BASIC EDUCATIONAL
COMPETENCY. THIS FtPRESENTS A PROFOUND RE-DIRECTION OF THE ADULT
PROGRAM. SDA'S MIGHT NOT BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE CENTRAL ACTOR IN SUCH
AN ARRANGEMENT. SCHEMING IMPORTANT AND SPECIAL ABOUT J1PA, AND INDEED
ABOUT JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS STRETCHING BACK TO MOTA, MIGHT BE LOST IN
SUCH A REDIRECTION. CURRENTLY, NON-EMPLOYMENT ADULT OUTCOMES RECEIVr. NO
POSITIVE RECOGNITION. THERE OUGHT TO BE A MIDDLE GROUND THAT RECOGNIZES
EMPLOYABILITY GAINS FOR ADULTS (SUCH AS BASIC SKILLS AOIIEVEMENTS) BUT
DOES NOT GO SO FAR AS TO RE-ORIENT THE BASIC DIRECTION CF J1PA WHICH IS
UNSUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT.
146
144
FINALLY, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS APPEAR TO DOWNPLAY THE IMPORTANC!: OF
COST EFFICIENCY MEASURES SUCH AS ADULT COST PER ENTERED EMPLOYMENT AND
YOUTH COST PER POSITIVE TERMINATION. COST EFFICIENCY IS AN IMPORTANT
ELEMENT OF BUSINESS SUCCESS, AND IT HAS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE PUBLIC
SECTOR AS WELL. THERE ARE CONTINUING CONCERNS THAT THE FOCUS ON UNIT
COSTS IN JTPA HAS DRIVEN SDA TOWARD THE LOWEST COST/LOWEST INVESTMENT
PROGRAM OPTIONS. RATHER THAN ELIMINATING COST CONTROLS IN REACTION TO
THIS CONCERN, IT MAKES MORE SENSC TO RELIEVE COST PRESSURES AND ELIMINATE
THE INCENTIVE FOR OFFERING LOW COST PKCGRAM OPTIONS. IN ILLINOIS, THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCCA) IN CONJUNCTION WITH A
TASK FORCE OF SDA REPRESENTATIVES HAS MDVED CREATIVELY IN THIS
DIRECTION. IN IMPLEMENTING STATE BASED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS MODELS THIS
YEAR DCCA RAISED ACCEPTABLE UNIT COST LEVELS TO RELIEVE THE PRESSURE FEL:
BY SOME SDA'S. THEY ALSO DECIDED TO RETAIN COST STANDARDS AS
SANCTIONABLE BUT CEASED TO UTILIZE THEM AS REWA1DED MEASURES FOR
7.gEENTIVE BONUS PURPOSES. NOW, THERE IS NO INCENTIVE TO DRIVE DOWN COSTS
INILLINOIS, BUT THERE IS A CONCERN FOR CONTROLLING COST CEILINGS.
THERE ARE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS THAT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS INHIBIT SERVICES
TO THE HARD TO SERVE AND MOST IN NEED. IF STANDARDS ARE TOO HIGH, THEN
WE SHOULD RELAX THEM. IF SDA'S ARE MAXIMIZING RESULTS AT THE EXPENSE OF
THE HARD TO SEUF IN ORDER TO OBTAIN INCENTIVE BONUSES, THEN WE SHOULD
145
CHAFE THE REWARD SYSTEM OR ELSE ELIMINATE IT ALTOGETHER. THE THREAT OF
SANCTIONS IS IN ITSELF A POWERFUL INCENTIVE.
THE FOURTH THEME IS THAT THE ALLOCATION FORMULA SHOULD PROVIDE EQUAL
FOCUS ON UNEMP LOYMENT AND ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, The. TWIN CONCERNS OF JTPA.
THE FUNDIM F 1ULA SHOULD ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CONNECTION 3ETWEEN
LOCAL FUNDIN. ) STATE FUNDI1G. THESE TWO ELEMENTS HAVE BEEN
INCORPORATED SUCCESSFULLY INTO 1HE FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
THE SUB - COMMITTEE IS TO BE COMPLIMENTED FOR ITS EFFORT TO DEVISE AN
EQ9ITABLE FORMULA THAT SIMULTANEOUSLY PROMOTES EFFECTIVE TARGETIM AND
MAINTAINS FUNDIRG STABILITY IN THE JTPA SYSTEM. THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE
ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED.
1. 'ME FORMULA COULD BE STRPGTHENED BY A
PROVISION REQUIRIM THE USE OF THE CURRE.
POPULATION SURVEYS' ANNUAL AVERAGE
UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS FOR THOSE LOCAL AREAS
WHERE THEY ARE AVAILABLE. THIS SWGESTION
STEMS FROM THE CONCERN ABOUT A GROSS
UNDERCOUNT OF JOBLESS PERSONS IN CHICAGO.
THE FOLLOWI1G TABLE SHOWS THE DIFIERENCE
BETWEEN THE COUNT OF Waif LOVED PERSONS AND
THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN THE OFFICIAL LABOR
FORCE SERIES UTILIZED AS THE BASIS FOR JTPA
ALLOCATIONS AND THE ANNUAL AVERAGE LABOR
FORCE FIGURES AVAILABLE FROM TrIE CURRENT
150t
,
PCPULATION SURVEY PROVIDED BY NE U.S. BUREAU
OF LABOR STATISTICS FOR SELECTED LARGE
CITIES. OVER THE THREE YEAR PERIOD SHOWN IN
THE TABLE, THE CURRENT PCPULATION SURVEY
COUNTED A JOBLESS TOTAL IN CHICAGO 37% LARGER
THAN THE OFFICIAL SERIES AND AN UNEMPLOYMENT
RATE ABOUT 3.9 PERCENTE POINTS HIGHER THAN
THE OFFICIAL SERIES.
AVERAGE ANNUAL UNEPPLOYIPENT IN CHICAGO
OFFICIAL (FOR JPA ALLOCATIONS) CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY (BLS)
UNE!, LOYED UNE* LOYMENT RATE MEW LOYED UNEPP LOYPENT RATE
1985 145607 9.5% 203000 14.7%
1986 130380 9.3 180000
1987 117123 8.3 155000 11.0
2. THE MECHANICS OF THE 50X AMOUNT ALLOCATED ON
THE BASIS OF THE ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
YOUTH RATE FOR THE WITHIN-STATE TITLE II-8
FORMULA ARE UNCLEAR.
3. THE NUMBER OF STATES QUALI7IPG FOR A SHARE
OF FUNDS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF "SUBSTANTIAL
NUMBER" APPEARS RESTRICTIVE.
147
THE FIFTH AND FINAL THEME IS THAT THE AMENDMENTS SHOULD MAINTAIN A
STRAIGHT-FORWARD, SDA-CENTERED DELIVERY STRUCTURE. THIS THEME IS NOT
CARRIED OUT IN THE CHALLENGE GRANT PROVISIONS. WITH THE CURRENT STRAIN
ON RESOURCES IT IS IMPORTANT NOT TO DISSIPATE J1PA DOLLAR! JNDItG A
PARALLEL DELIVERY STRUCTURE. THE ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANIST_ :OR THE
CHALLEN3E GRANT SHOULD BE INCORPORATED WITHIN THE STRUCTURE OF SDA'S AND
ITS OBJECTIVES INCORPORATED INTO SDA'S TWO YEAR PLANS.
148
Senator SIMON. Thank you, Mr. Vazquez.On point two of the final five points you were making, if you
could provide us the details of the language you would like to see,we will weigh that at that point; OK?
Mr. VAZQUEZ. Fine. I will do that.Senator SIMON. Great.Let me ask both of you, you heard the Mayor of Louisville indi-
cate that there was a time lag problem in receiving funds fromState Government. Do either of you have that problem?
Mr. VAZQUEZ. We do not in the City of Chicago. I think the Stateof Illinois has had a very timely approach to meeting its deadlineswithin the Act.
Senator SIMON. Mr. Jolly?Mr. JOLLY. As you know, with us, Mr. Senator, we depend on the
Private Industry Council, so if the Private Industry Council suffers,our subcontracts obviously suffer the same way. So if in Louisville,they are suffering the pains of getting the money, then obviouslythe OIC would suffer, because we subcontract through them. Therehas been some evidence of some difficulties in some States; wheth-er it is political or whether it is unreal administrative concern orwhatever, there have been some delays, particularly where strongmayors may disagree with strong governors, and you get thosekinds of relationships. So we would suffer as a result of the st.bcon-tract that we would get out of the Private Industry Council, andthere is some evidence of that.
Senator SIMON. Yes, Mr. Vazquez?Mr. VAZQUEZ. Senator, regarding Mayor Abramson's comments, I
thir.k we do support the local-Federal partnership for reasons otherthan the question of the timeliness of the funding, having to do, ofcourse, with the direct relationship to meeting the Nation's disad-vantaged population needs. I think that that local-Federal partner-ship has proven itself in the past.
The current provisions of working through the States does preju-dice us, largely because of the pass-through provisions that areworked out at the State level, the lack of data related to State allo-cations in relationship to the larger city needs, so that removingthat State level of funding, I think, would allow us to have a muchmore direct relationship to the Federal Government's priorities.
Senator SIMON. I thank you.Let me just mention, not too long ago the Superintendent of
Schools of Philadelphia was here, talking about illiteracy and soforth. She talked about how an intensified preschool education pro-gram was helping people in Philadelphia. They tested the programover time, and it was having a remarkable effect on the dropoutrate, teenage pregnancy rate, and the crime rate. I asked her,"What percentage of the young people are you reaching wno needthis?" and she said about 2C percentand that means 80 percentare falling through the cracks in our society. So we are not reach-ing the people we should. Unfortunately, that is true for too manypeople in our society, and you are on the cutting edge of reachingout there.
Let me just commend you, Mr. Jolly, for using a term that I alsouse that a lot of people do not want to use, and that is "under-class." I think it is real.
l. r,'-"a ..11 ki 0
149
Mr. JOLLY. Yes, it is.Senator Simmer. Let's not pretend we do not have an underclass.
It does not mean it is a permanent underclass, but unless we dosomething about it, as you two are, it will be a permanent under-class.
Let me just add, we welcome any other specific suggestions youhave as we move along. We will be marking a bill up sometimeafter we receive the recommendations from the Department ofLabor.
We thank you for being h e and for your tes imony.Mr. JOLLY. Thank you.Mr. VAZQUEZ. Thank yor,, Senator.Senator SrmoN. Our hearing stands adjourned.[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
. . .rr'., f
dx.
JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT YOUTI.EMPLOYMENT AMENDMENTS OF 1989
THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 1989
U.S. SENATE,SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY,
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES,Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in roomSD-562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Paul Simon(chairman of the subfommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Simon and Adams.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SIMONSenator SIMON. The subcommittee will come to order.This is the second in three hearings on J PA amendments. My
concern, frankly, is that to a great extent we are creaming in theJTPA program. We are so eager for success, and we all want suc-cess, that we are reaching those where we are going to get somegood, successful figures very quickly.
When you compare JTPA and CETA, for example, it is very clearthat CETA reached more of those who were not high school gradu-ates; those who were the hard to employ. And it is, let me just add,part of an overall concern I have that we are increasingly segregat-ing our society on the basis of economics, and the poor more andmore no longer live on our doorsteps and we are not reaching out,giving people an opportun;ty that we should.
Due to scheduling conflicts Senator Thurmond could not be here,his statement follows.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR STROM THURMONDSenator TutiamoNn. I commend you for holding this second, in a
series o three hearings on the Job Training Partnership Act(JTPA). The information that this Subcommittee is cl tainingthrough these hearings is most enlightening.
Today, it is a pleamre for me to recognize one of our witnesses,Mr. Bill Shinn, who is from my State of South Carolina. Mr. Shinnis the Personnel and Employment Relations Manager of the LouisRich Company, in Newberry, South Carolina. He will present testi-mony later this morning on behalf of the National RehabilitationAssociation. Mr. Shinn is a fine man, who has gained valuable in-sight into the benefits of hiring individuals with disabilities. Hehas seen the contributions that disabled persons can make to theworkplace, once they have received the proper training. The Louis
051)
152
Rich Company operates a poultry processing plant in South Caroli-na, which employs over 1,000 employees, many of whom were hiredunder the Job Training Partnership Act.
Mr. Chairman, this South Carolina industry is convinced thatthe JTPA is an essential component of the effort on the part of thepublic and private sectors to mainstream our disadvantaged anddisabled citizens into America's workforce. I agree. The JTPA hasproven itself to be one of the major initiatives impacting the em-ployment demands that are facing our Nation, and it has served asa flexible vehicle for meeting changing market requirements.
The Department of Labor has conducted an extensive review ofthe Job Training Partnership Act through its JTPA Advisory Com-mittee. I have been informed that the advisory committee releasedits report yesterday. I am looking forward to reviewing the findingsof the advisory committee and considering them along with themeasure, S. 543, that has been introduced b; the Chairman of ourSubcommittee.
Unfortunately, my schedule will not permit me to stay for theentire hearing. However, I will submit iuestions to our witnesses,which I believe will be helpful to the members of our Subcomm4t-tee as we evaluate the JTPA and seek to refine it, so that it will beeven more successful in its mission of enhancing the employabilityof the disadvantaged youth and adults of our Country.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your cooperation and courtesy in ourefforts to revise the JTPA. You are to be commended for your dedi-cation to this task, and I appreciate having the benefit of the ex-pertise that you have developed in this area. I am confident that,under your able leadership on this issue, our Subcommittee willcraft revisions that will increase the effectiveness of the JTPA. Iam looking forward to reviewing the testimony that is presentedtow) and would like to welcome our witnesses to this hearing.
Senator &mom Our first witness is one of the most articulatepeople in the United States, well worth waiting eight minutes forhere, Marian Edelman. She is the President of the Children's De-fense Fund. She has been a powerful voice for a more rational amore compassionate policy in this nation.
Part of this bill, the challenge grant proposal, is a product ofMarian Wright Edelman. We are very pleased to have her here asour first witness.
Then I may say to the other witnesses, we are facing a bit of aproblem with Larry Eagleburger, the nominee for Deputy Secre-tary of State. I am on the Foreign Relations Committee and willhave to recess the hearing for a few minutes while I run to theForeign Relations Committee. I hope it will be for only a few min-utes, until we get some things worked out down there. Then I willbe right back.
We are very pleased to have you here, Ms. Edelman.
STATEMENT OF MARIAN r RIGHT EDELMAN, PRESIDENT,CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND
Ms. EDELMAN. I am very pleased to be here, Mr. Chairman, andmy deep apologies for being late. I know how busy the Senator is.
15:6
153
Senator &mom You have had to wait for Senators so often thatit is only appropriate that we occasionally have to wait for others.
1Viii EDELMAN. Well, I also just appreciate the Chairman's strongleaaership on behalf of disadvantaged young people. You have beena strong and persistent voice, eloquent voice, and I am just deeplygrateful.
Everywhere I go, like I am sure everywhere you go, those whowork with young pet.,1 Ire puzzled by our country's willingness tothrow away the futur d A our young people, to ignore their poten-tial contributions to the community, and to pay the large ar dmounting costs of neglect.
They ask what will be done to rescue our young men, who in-creasingly cannot earn enough money to marry or support even asmall-family. They know that JTPA, as currently structured, is noteffective and not enough. So I welcome very much your efforts totake the needed steps to strengthen this program's effectiveness onbehalf of the disadvantaged young.
The problems facing young people who don't go to college willneither go away nor disappear through economic growth alone. Be-tween 1973 and 1987, the average earnings of young men in their20s dropped by 18 percent, and the proportion of young men whodid not work at all during an entire year nearly doubled.
During the same period, the marriage rates for young men fellby half, and the poverty rate for young families nearly doubled.And as you know, we are spending a lot of time on trying to pre-vent teenage pregnancy. The fact is now that 61 percent of allblack babies are being born to never married, single women, andthat gets back directly, though, to the inability of young men tohave decent skills and to get decent jobs and to support families. Sothe basis for family formation is economic self-sufficiency.
Almost 30 percent of all young families with children lived inpoverty in 1987. We must act now with urgency to save our youngmen and women. While JTPA by itself is not the whole answer,right now it i3 contributing far too little to the solution.
JTPA typically avoids, as you have already pointed out, Mr.Chairman, those young people most in need of help. It focuses soheavily upon quick job placement and short-term results that it ig-nores more intensive and lasting investments in our youth.
I applaud your proposal to target more funds to low-income com-munities, giving communities greater flexibility to mount experi-mental programs for hard-to-serve populations, revising perform-ance standards to stress basic skills and longer-term gains in em-ployability. These modest steps will help JTPA fulfill its originalmission of opening doors for economically disadvantaged youngpeople.
There are two additional steps that you have incorporated inyour proposals which we want to support very strongly this year.First is the creation of a strong replication mechanism to use theknowledge we already have about successful programs for youngpeople and, second, the establishment of the Fair Chance Programto reach out to those youths not currently served by JTPA, and testour ability to create a seamless web of services which meet theirneeds because most disadvantaged yuung people have multipleneeds which will not respond to single interventions.
,5
154
A focused replication effort within JTPA is long overdue. Nobusiness or corporation could survive without some way of fieldtesting its products or services, incorporating the lessons learned,and franchising the results throughout the firm. We need a similarmechanism in our social programs to improve the quality of our ef-forts for young people, including JTPA.
There is nothing mysterious or even expensive about this. Withvery limited funds, we can support high-quality technical assist-ance and incentive grants for communities that adopt effectivemodels and approaches.
But the pay-off is potentially quite large, measured in greater re-turns on $1.4 billion spent in JTPA funds spent for youth.
Finally, I am very grateful for your interest in the grant commis-sion's Far Chance proposal on which we have worked extensivelyduring the past year. If we are to avoid losing an entire generationof young Deople, we need a strong new message of hope and oppor-tunity, and we need to get every State involved in the challenge ofintegrated existing efforts into a comprehensive set of service: foryouth with multiple needs.
The Fair Chance Program would provide the catalyst for thiscrucial next step. It is not just another categorical program whichwould add to the duplication and bureaucratic morass.
Fair Chance would give communities a powerful incentive tocome to the table and seek to coordinate their fragmented re-sources. Its funds would not be used to set up a new or competingsystem which circumvents JTPA. Rather, they would fill the gapsand build the essential bridges between JTPA and other programsserving at-risk youth.
We all know there is a crisis out there. We are paying for it, andfor our neglect with the unraveling of our young families, with theloss of our young men to a vicious cycle of drugs, crime, and vio-lence, and the constant drain on public funds for prison and wel-fare costs.
It is time to begin a new era, to invest in our young people, andto put an end to this tragic loss of life and hope among the nextgenerations of America.
I thank you for this opportunity to testify and I thank you foryour leadership, and I am looking forward to working with you tosee that these proposals become reality in this Congress.
Senator SIMON. I thank you. Your full statement will be enteredin the record, and the full statements of the succeeding witnesseswill be entered in the record.
One of the things you sayand this is moving away temporarilyfrom the JTPA program, is that JTPA by itself is not the wholeanswer, but right now it is contributing too little to the solution.
This legislation, tinkers at the edges with the problem ratherthan assaulting the problem. We are doing very little, dreamingabout really reaching out.
If suddenly President Bush were to say to Marian Wright Edel-manand I wish he were to do this, what can really be done tohelp the underclass in our society. You can do five things. Howwould you respond to President Bush.
Ms. EDELMAN. The first thing you have got to do is prevent asmany people who are not now in an underclass from becoming
I .6 3
155
members of that underclass. Most of the poor are not in an under-class, and that is why we have got to put into place preventive in-vestment policies.
We have laid out in this year's "Vision" a bill of hope that sayslet us set goals by 1992 to invest fully in those successful, cost effec-tive, preventive programspre-natal care, immunizations, preven-tive health care for mothers and children at up to 200 percent ofthe poverty level, full Head Start for everybody, Title I educationso that yonag people and a good early childhood foundation and achild care system like ABC supplements, not as a substitute for,adequate income supports to working families so that children getthat good early stz :t. We know what works. We know how to pro-vide decent preventive investment programs. So that is the firststep, is to give the kids a good start.
Secondly, we have got to put into place a comprehensive servicesystem. We have talked about seamless web here, but you can't doone thing and expect it to work. No par -.Int would choose betweeneducation or child care, but we have got to talk about integratedremedial service delivery systems for young people who are alreadyin their teen years and who need an extra push and extra help andremediation to get back into school or to get a jr11-
So you have got to have the kinds of things you alb balking abouthere, but to deal with out-of-school youth so that, again, they seethat there is some hope and there is some alternative.
Third, you have got to deal with kind of the basic wage issue andjobs issues. Again, if young people who stay in school get out thereand find that there is not a job, and one in four of all black highschool graduates in this country are unemployed, you know, theydon't have an incentive to stay in school.
We have got to really deal with both jobs and the nature of thosejobs, and make sure that those jobs pay a decent living wage. Thatmakes us support the minimum very strongly.
Fourth, we have got to deal with housing. I mean, we have got tostop the absolute assault on low and moderate-income housing, andthat is something that is now becoming a middle-class problem.
We all used to cry when our kids left to go off to school or go tocollege. Now, we are crying because they are never going to go offand leave home because they can't afford to buy a house. And wereally have got to deal with the problems of young families of allraces and classes, and the housing issue is a piece of that.
But, fifth, and most important, we have got to create a climate ofchange, a new of expectations and values for our young people.We have crazy, immoral national investment priorities and we aregoing to have to deal with the crisis of our youth and families likeit is. There is a real crisis upon which this nation's very future de-pends.
c.P know, when we have got a savings 2nd loan crisis, you allsomehow find, or the President can find $G0 billion. When youwant to sort of add a new weapons system, that money somehowappears.
Yet, MI .1 you say you want to have 3, 4, 5, 10 billion, or 27 bil-lion, which is what it would take to eliminate poverty in familieswith children, which is what our goal ought to be, somehow wecan't afford it.
1 5
156
So we have got to change our notion of what is important, ournotions of what is security, and eliminate child and family povertyin this country through jobs, income supports, and supportive serv-ices.
It is all laid out in our new "Vision" book and if you would justdo that, we would solve all these problems. [Laughter.]
Senator SIMON. I knew I could get a good answer, and you did itwithout even taking a breath. [Laughter.]
It is very interesting to use the figure 27 billion because we haveseen in the last few weeks the prime rate of interest go up one per-cent. A one-percent increase in the prime rate of interest costs thefederal government $27 billion a year.
If we brought interest rates down two percent and used half ofthat to reduce the deficit and the other half to do what you aretalking about. How much richer of a country we would be.
In your statement, you also say between 1973 and 1987, the aver-age earnings of young men in their 20s dropped by 18 percent, andthe proportion of young men who did not work at all during anentire year nearly doubled.
We have also seen the numbers of young black males going tocollege decreasing. What are we doing to our society when wepermit all of this?
Ms. EDELMAN. We are moving backwards. We are creating a two-tier system, but we are building an alienation that I think is goingto cost us all in the future. I think the message that this country isgoing to have to get is that its very capacity to compete economi-cally and to remain a first-rate power depends not on weapons sys-tems over in the Pentagon and not the savings and loan associa-tions leading this country in the 21st century.
It depends on whether we invest in every child now in order tomake them productive workers. We have a shrinking child popula-tion, a shrinking young workers population. More and more ofthem are minorities, and we are cutting off our noses when we aredenying these young people a chance to become productive ratherthan dependent citizens.
The very future economic competitiveness of this nation rests onwhat we do with poor minority youth. To the deg-ee that they arebecoming drug addicts and drug pushers and alcoholics rather thantrained workers, educated workers, we are dooming, I think, Amer-ica's economic future, to say nothing of our moral legitimacy.
We have documented what is happening to our black young menand all of our young people, to our young families, in "VanishingDreams," which I am sure members of your Subcommittee staffhave.
But I think the message we are going to have to say over andover again is we don't have a choice about investing in youngpeople anymore. If we are serious about being a strong nation,about leading, about competing with the Japanese and Germans,and about just being a decent people, we need these poor blackyoung people as much as we need our more privileged white onesnow. We need every child.
So I hope we have common sense as a nation and that leaderslike you and your messages that this is where the real security ofthis nation lies will begin to prevail, because for the first time in
157
15 years, working on children's issues, doing what is right anddoing what a democratic society profess-3s it wants to do and wantsto be, and doing what is absolutely essential to save our nationalskins have converged.
So I hope, therefore, we take this next period as one where wetry to put into place the strong building blocks for healthy familiesand for healthy young people, because if we do it wrong or do itcheap or do it cosmetically, it is not going to work. That meansthat the quality of life, .or all of us and the standard of living forall of us is going to der' ine.
Senator SIMON. An( when you say doing it cosmetically, even theJTPA programyou know, we are reaching five percent of the eli-gibles here. You know, it is a good program. It can be a better pro-gram, and that is what we want to do here, but we are just scratch-ing the surface.
Ms. EDELMAN. Scratching the surface.Senator SIMON. Well, I thank you for your leadership. Every
time I hear you, I rant to get charged up again and go out andmount the- -
Ms. EDELMAN. Just do ;t. You know, there are a whole lot ofpeople out in communities who are really ready, and I think that itis time for the political leadersand I know you are aware of thisand have been out there, but it is time for political leaders to catchup with the American people.
They are ready; they are waiting to be galvanized. They nowknow that we have got problems and they are rer.dy to confrontthem, and I just hope that with more strong voices like you, wewill get about the business of doing it.
Senator Sr :ON. Thank you very, very much.Ms. EDELMAN. Thank you.Senator SIMON. And you are correct. My staff probably has that
report, but I don't.Ms. EDELMAN. Well, I am going to leave you your own personal
copy, so when you have nothing to do --Senator SIMON. All right. Thank you very, very much.Ms. EDELMAN. Thank you.The prepared statement of Ms. Edelman follows:]
1 6 i
Children's Defense Fund122 C Street. N Wviastrogion. C C 20001
Telephone (202) 6284787
168
DES LoRBE e00t1 TOMEThe SeN;', 0WwilClart
ep
D
COI"
TESTIMONY OF
THE CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITYCOMMITTEE ON LASOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
HEARING ON S. 543
JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1989
MARCH 16, 1989
Presented by
Marian Wright EdelmanPresident
Children's Defense Fund
IGht*"...;
159
I welcome the opportunity to come before the Subcommittee
this morning to discuss ways in which the Job Training Partner-
ship Act can be Atrengthened and the next steps we must take to
save our young people.
It was over a year ago that I last -.me before this
Subcommittee to talk about what we must do to rescue the current
generation of youth from lives without work and without hope. We
were deeply grateful then for Senator Metzenbaum's efforts to
call attention to the needs of severely disadvantaged youth, and
we greatly appreciate the Chairman's strong leadership this year
to undertake a much-needed refocusing of the JTPA program.
In the year that has gone by, little hau changed for our
young people. Everywhere I go, those who work with young people
are puzzled by our willingness to throw away the futures of our
youth, to ignore their potential contributions to the community
and to pay the large and mounting costs of neglect. In
particular, they ask what will be done to rescue our young men,
who increasingly cannot earn enough to marry or support even a
small family. They know that JTPA as currently structured is not
effective and not enough.
The problem facing young people who do not go on to college
will not go away, and it will not disappear through economic
growth alone. Between 1973 and 1987, the average earnings of
young mon in their twenties dropped by 18 percent, and the
proportion of young men who did not work at all during the entire
year nearly doubled. During the same period, the marriage rate
for young on fell by half and the poverty rate for young
1
160
families nearly doubled. Almost 30 percent of all young families
with children lived in pover-, iu 1987.
CDT recently completed a comprehensive study of the economic
plight of our young families, entitled Vanishing Dreams. The
picture which emerged from our research, undertaken in
conjunction with Dr. Andrew Sum of Northeastern Univers,ty's
Center for Labor Market Studies, is deeply troubling. An
economic disaster has afflicted America's young families since
the early 1970s, the likes of which. we have not seen since the
Croat Depression. Our report documents 0.at the economic
problems of young workers are a major per, of the growing tragedy
of child poverty in America, and that the American dream has
begun to unravel for this generation of youth people.
We must act to save our young men and women. JTPA by itself
is not the whole answer, but right now it is contributing too
little to the solution.
The problems in MA are now all too familiar: the program
typically avoids those young people most in need of help, and it
focuses so heavily upon quick job placements and short-term
results that it ignores more intensive and lasting investments in
our youth. The JTPA system has responded well to some
lhallenges, and has restored public confidence in the potential
for helping the unemployed through federal job training efforts.
Yet it is now ,,ne to rededicate ourselves to the more difficult
challenges of reaching young people who are now shut out of most
JTPA programs and giving local communities the tnols to do an
effective job in serving these youth.
2
,b
161
The Job Training Partnership Act Amendments of 1989 (S.543),
as introduced by Chairman Simon, include a number of appropriate
and important steps to strengthen the JTPA system. In
particular, CDF applauds the Chairman's proposals to addres:
these problems by targeting more funds to low-income communities,
giving communities greater flexibility to mount experimental
programs for "hard-to-serve" populations, and revising
performance standards to stress basic skills and longer-term
gains in employability. These changes will help JTPA fulfill its
original mission of opening doors for economically disadvantaged
young peoplr, and deserve the Sctcommittee's support,
The proposed ,range in the JTPA allocation formula, while
raising difficult political questions for the Congress, is
clearly justified by the changing nature of the problems in the
youth labor market. If we intend to use JTPA to achieve long-
term employment gains for economically di.adva-taged youth and
adults, we must target funds effectively to poor neighburhoodr,
including both depressed rural areas and our inner cities. By
relying too heavily upon official unemployment data, the current
allocation formula spreads JTPA funds too thinly and fails to
focus available resources on those communities with high
concentrations of low-income workers and families. We can do
better.
We also can do better in encouraging i ino':ation while also
ensuring results on behalf of harder-to-serve youth. The
challenges of servir.' in-school versus out-of-school youth are
very different, and expectations of success in JTPA programs must
3
111.11Pw:4
162
reflect these differences. In addition, while there are good
reasons to preserve the performance-based nature of the JTPA
program, we must find new ways of recognizing that reaching and
helping more disadvantaged youth remains as such an art as a
science and that communities need some flexibility to try new
approaches and to fail. If we demand predictable results for
every JTrA dollar we spend, we can hardly be surprised when risks
are minimized and the toughest problems largely avoided.
Beyond these revisions in the current JTPA program, there
are two additional steps incorporated in the Chairman's proposals
which we must take this year: (1) creation of a strong
replication mechanism to use the knowledge we already have about
successful programs for young people; and (2) es.ablishment of
the Fair Chance program to reach out to those youth not currently
served by JTPA or any other program and test our ability to
create a "seamless web" of services which meets their needs. COP
has welcomed the chance to work closely with the Chairman in the
development of these initiatives, and we urge the Subcommittee's
strong support for them as logical next steps to strengthen our
current youth employment efforts.
A focused replication effort within JTPA is long overdue.
No business or corporation could survive without some way of
field testing its products or services, incorporating the lessons
learned and franchising the results throughout the firm. We need
a similar mechanism in our social programs to improve the quality
of our efforts for young people, including JTPA. There's nothing
mysterious or even expensive about this: with very limited
4
163
funds, we can support high-quality technical assistance and
incentive grants for communities that adopt effective models and
approaches. But the payoff is potentially quite large, measured
in greater returns on $1.4 billion in JTPA funds spent for youth.
The U.S. Department of Labor has already undertaken this
kind of replication on a limited scale in its national pilot and
demonstration efforts. For example, the recent DOL commitment to
replicate the Summer Education and Training Program (STEP)
developed by Public/Private Ventures in dozens of communities
throughout the country represents the kind of investment in
proven approaches which we should be making on a far more
systematic basis within JTPA.
For decades, we have tested various program models through
pilot projects and demcastratien programs, both publically and
privately funded, but we still have failed to build upon the
lessons we have learned through ever >dest investments in
technic/l assistance or incentive grants. At times, we encourage
local comnus.:ties to implement model programs--Section 205 of the
current JTPA statute, which lists exemplary youth programs as
options for use of JTPA funds, is a good example. Yet in JTPA we
have not taken the next step oL giving communities the guidance
and the financial incentives they need to get started.
There is no magic formula for successful program replication
on a large scale. We need to find a way to shield the selection
of program models from 12,..ue political influence, ensuring that
only those approaches with reasonable evidence of success become
the focus of replication efforts. We also need to rely upon
164
national or regional intermediaries to provide the hands-on
guidance and advice vhich is crucial to successful replication
but exceeds the.technical assistance capacity of the Department
of Labor. Wit% this general ap, ach, we can put some muscle
behird the empty exhortations of Section 235 of JTPA and invest
more systematically in successful programs.
Finally, we are grateful to the Chairman for his interest in
and sponsorship of the Fair Chance proposal developed by the
William T. Grant Foundation Commission on Work, Family and
Citizenship. CDF staff worked extensively with the Grant
Commission during the past year, and we owe the Commission many
thanks for its tireless efforts over the past two years to call
attention to the needs of noncolle,,e-bound youth, the so-called
"forgotten half.' We see the Pair Chance proposal as a beginning
step to correct a pattern of persistent underinvestment in those
young people who choose not go on to some form of postsecondary
education, and we join the Grant Commission in strong support for
its enactment this year.
If we are to avoid losing an entire generation of young
people, we need a strong new message of hope and opportunity, and
we need to get every state involved in the challenge of
integrating existing efforts into a comprehensive set of services
for youth with multiple needs. The Pair Chance pi gram would
provide the cattlyst for e,ls crucial next step. 1.. is not just
another categorical program which would add to the duplication
and bureaucratic morass. To the contrary, Fair Chance would give
communities a powerful incentive to come to the table- and seek to
6
n)4 el
165
coordinate their fragmented resources. Fair Chance funds would
not be used to set up a new or competing system which cis, ,vents
JTPA; rather, they would fill the gaps and build the essential
bridges between JTPA and other procrams serving at-risk youth.
Although the Fair Chance program would be authorized as a
new Part H of Title IV of JTPA, we must stress that the program
would reach well beyond the confines of JTPA in pursuit of
improved coordination and integration of services at the local
level. In communities where the local Private Industry Council
is broadly representative and the logical sponsor of an
community-wide effort to guarantee access to education and
training for all youth, the Fair Chance proposal explicit
authorizes the designation of the PIC as the consortium
responsible for development and implementation of the Fait Chance
program. However, the pro.osal also permits local communities to
rely upon other new or existing mechanisms for this lurpose,
thereby preserving maximum local flexibility and providing
alternatives for community-wide collaboration in the event that
the PIC fails to exercise strong leadership in this area.
For several years now, there have been anecdotal reports of
recruitment problems within JTPA youth programs. Such reports
have been puzzling, because the evidence also suggests that JTPA
programs reach only a small fraction of all young people in need
of remedial education or training assistance. Pair Chance will
give us new insights into the extent of unmet needs within the
youth population by challenging local communities to reach more
aggressively into low income neighborhoods and giving them the
7
969
166
resources needed to deliver on their promise of help for young
people. In the process, Fair Chance will also send a sorely-
needed message of hope and opportunity to large groups of
America's youth who now see no place and no hope for themselves
in the future.
Now is the time to act, not to bicker. We all know there is
a crisis out there. We are paying for our neglect with the
unravelling of our young families, the loss of our young men to a
vicious cycle of drugs, crime and violence, and the constant
drain on public funds for prison and welfare costs. Its time to
begin a new era, to invest in our young people and to put an end
to this tragic loss of life and hope among the next generation of
Americans.
Cm looks forward to working with the Subcommittee for
enactment of S. 543, and I _icome the opportunity to respond to
any questions or comments ,QU might have.
8
170
167
Senator SIMON. As I indicated before, I am involved in the For-eigr, Relations Committee problem we face down there right now. Iam going to ha,.e to recess. We will recess for ten minutes and beright back. I apologize to the other witnesses here.
[Recess.]Senator SimoN. The subcommittee hearing will resume, and my
apologies to the witnesses. Let me add, I may get pulled down thereagain at any moment, so we will try and speed through this processas rapidly as we can.
First, a panel of William Kolberg, the P-esident of the NationalAlliance of Business, who has been a frequent visitor before oursubcommittee, and we are very pleased to have you back again;and Jack Klepinger, the Chairman of the National Association ofthe PICs from Weber-Morgan, Utah. We are happy to have youhere again, Jack.
We will enter both of your statements in the record, but let mehear from both of you.
STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM H. KOLBERG, PRESIDENT, NATIONALALLIANCE OF BUSINESS; AND JACK KLEPINGER, CHAIRMAN,BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATEINDUSTRY COUNCILS
Mr. KOLBERG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for invitingme again to appear before this committee. Let me begin by saying c
that, in general, we support your legislation. We appreciate theopen consultative process that you and your staff have gonethrough.
I was happy to hear you say earlier in talking to Marian WrightEdelman that you think the JTPA is a very good program. I knowyou know we agree with that, but certainly it can be improved agreat deal.
I don't know whether you have had a chance to know or read thenew report from- -
Senator SimoN. I have just glanced at it, but it isaMr. KOLBERG [continuing]. The Job Training Advisory Commit-
te 'ack and I were both members of that body. I think that yourI .ation and the recommendations that 38 of us made to the Sec-re try are very consistent right on through. I hope that throughyour legislation and our continuing work that we can bring to passa lot of changes.
Let me just go through five quick things that I m ,,.1d like to em-phasize this p.orning. To me, the most important part of your billand the most important part of this report is a new youth title, theemphasis of new money and new authority for youth, because asyou said earlier, we need to devote more resources and we need todevelop more innovative strategies.
Wc think the separating of the adults and the youth in JTPAwould be a very important new emphasis on youth, and we certain-ly welcome that. The Fair Chance Youth Opportunity Grant, wethink, again, is an important new, possibly innovative program. Wethink that it perhaps goes too far and covers too many people inthe context of the way it is now written. Perhaps it is a bit too cat-egorical, but, Mr. Chairman, in the way you have been conducting
168
the development c,' this legislation, I know we will have anotherchance to talk further about it. So, again, I would just oily relatedto youth that what you are doing, we welcome. We think that newemphasis, new funds, and new, innovative titles are important, andwe -look forward to working with you.
Secondly, on funding and allocation formulas, you may rer:-.nn-ber that I was here the last time and testified before you. I saidJTPA was becoming badly underfunded. I would repeat that againthat the main titles have bee eroded by inflation to the tune oxabout 22 percent since it was written. We need to do somethingabout that. So, certainly, the addition of more ioney is an impor-tant thing and we certainly support that.
As far as the allocation formulas are concerned, we need to do abetter job of tafgeting the money in this program, where the prob-lems are. The problems are concentrated in our inner cities, and soin general, again, I think you are moving in the right direction andwe certainly support it.
Number three, you said earlier that there was some creamingJTPA. Yes, there is some. The things you have in your bill, I think,move in the right direction. We need to target services tetter.
You will find in this report, Mr. Chairman, a number of veryspecific ideas, some of which are already incorporated in your bill.I hope you will take a careful look at those and perhaps incorpo-rate even more of those ideas. We certainly can target a whole lotbetter than we have in the past, and let us see if we can't get rid ofwhatever creaming there is out there. Certainly, there isn't enoughmoney. As you said earlier, five percent is all we reach, so we havegot to be very careful to do the job with those most in need.
Number four, on private industry councils, when I was here thelast time I gave what I thought was a rather strong statementabout the importance of maintaining the private sector characterof that council.
I am glad to see, Mr. Chairman, that your latest draft has nowchanged that; that we continue a majority of rivate sector, for-profit people on the council and the chairmanship on the council.
Beyond that, I think we all ought to be a bit careful about set-ting percentages in law, and therefore making it impossible forlocal elected officials to adjust their councils to their local needs.But, in general, again, Mr. Chairman, you have been very flexible.We appreciate it.
As you know, we think, and I gather you agree now, that the pri-vate sector character of the council has been one of the most im-portant success factors, and I hope that we can continue that.
Fifthly, and this is almost a personal thing, I notice that youhave proposed abolisning the National Commission for Employ-ment Policy. I had a part in creating that some years ago.
I agree with you that it has never functioned the way I hopedwould. I gather you don't think it functions well now, and I agreewith that. But the reason I raise it is that we do not now have inthe federal government a way to pull the various Cabinet agenciestogether in some strategic planning, some strategic thinking mech-anism so that we can come out with an employment and trainingpoi._, for the United States. Perhaps the National Commission, re-formed with different membership, could do that.
7Kr;
169
I would urge you to think in general not necessarily about theNational Commission, but about that lack that we now have in theExecutive Brarcn and the Legislative Branch as a way of pullingtogether in one single plac., the public and private actors that needto be brought together tc develop the kind of an overall strategicplan for the workforce of the frture that you were talking withMarian this morning about and I know you know very much about.
Perhaps in thinking again about the National Commission, wecan think more creatively and come up with something that isgoing to work better for us. I would be happy to work with you onthat one.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say again that the process youhave gone through, I hink is stellar. I appreciate the cooperationtIlat you and your staff have given all of us. I look forward to yourquestions.
[The prepared statemept of Mr. Kolberg follows:]
170
TESTIMONY
OF THE
NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF SLTSINES;
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND l'IJMAN RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ON THE
JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT YOUTH EMPLOYMENf AMENDMEIr: IF 1959
(S. 543)
MARCh 16, 1989
Mr. Chairman, I ap 'eciate the opportunity to testify on the proposed Job Training
Partnership Act Youth Employment Amendments of 1989.
I am William H. Kolberg, President of the National Alliance of Business. The Alliance is
the only national organization led by and representing business in the specific area of
job training, employment, and human resource development for the nation's unemployed
and disadvantaged.
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment you on the open, consultative process that you have
pursued in the development of this legislation. This latest draft is one that we at the
Anirmce can support in most of its major elements. We hope to work with you closely in
1744
171
Natkal: Alliance of E qsa Page 2
ironing out some of the details. The bill reflects many of the recommendations of the
national JTPA advisory body to Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole which released its
recommendations several days ago. I have been privileged to be a member of that body.
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF PROGRAM SERVICES
The National Alliance of Business believes that the JTPA systlm should be steered
toward providing more intensive and comprehensive services to JTPA participants. It is
important that, at the end of a participant's training period, that participant is not only
able to find a job, but is able to find a job at a good paying wage, retain that job, and
move on to a better job at a later time. Such success Involves training which results in
the acquisition of basic skills; not only reading, writing, and arithmetic, but also the
abilities to think, exercise judgment, and learn how to learn. The jobs of today and of
the future demand such skills, and JTPA must be part cf a human resource development
system which meets these needs.
The JTPA advisory group report lays out a comprehensive proposal for improving quality
of program services, which includes individualizing training programs and increasing the
investment in training and research designed to build the capacity of the staff who
administer and deliver JTPA at the state and local levels. It also recommends changes
in the performance stanards system and in limitations on expenditures which might
otherwise be preventing local areas from adopting more intensive service delivery
strategies.
I support these Advisory Committee recommendations and am pleased to find your
legislation mirroring many of the Committee report's tenets.
1 :`
I 0tr:
172
Nat Iona! Allience of Businets Page 3
eparatir. Adult and Youth Programming
Your proposal places new emphasis on youth services which I believe is particularly
important. Your bill, like the JTPA advisory committee report, proposes to realign
adult and youth services Into consolidated program titles that will enhance the ability of
local programs to coordinate efforts with educational institutions and provide more
comprehensive year-round services for at-risk youth. We would concur with the
advisory committee report that a majority of funding under a separate youth title be
spent or. out of school youth, the so called "forgotten ha..," many of whom are dropouts.
Itudies have indicated that the youth summer employment program is no longer the
most effective use of federt employment and training funds. In many areas, there is no
shortage of private Kteter summer employment opportunities for youth. Additionally,
research has shown that the skill needs of at-risk youth are rarely addressed through
summer employment a.nej youth need instead a comprehensive array of year-round
services, which may Include a job during the summer.
Combining year-round youth programming, particularly basic skills training, with youth
summer employment programming may be the most effective means for giving local
program operators the ability and the incentive to use their youth '..eds more
effectively.
Fair chance Youth Opportunity Challenge Grant
Your Pair Chance proposal highlights the importance that this nation must place on
serving youth and easing their transition into tle world of work. 'Iou are right that we
must put more emphasis on helping our youth, devote, more resources, and develop more
innovative service strategies. I am concerned, though, about the categorical nature of
this proposal.
.tit; :
173
National Alliance of Busines. Page 4
The Fair Chance proposal would make all youth In a demonstration area eligible for
services, rather than targeting services to those economically disadvantaged youth with
skills deficiencies. While ideally we would like to see ev try youth assisted In making the
transition from school to work, training, or higher education, we realize that this is not
possible today. Instead, we must concentrate resources where they are most needed.
If we bow to budget realities and strip sway the requirement for universal eligibility,
what is left is not significantly different from what we would all like to sec under JTPA.
The programs and services which would be provided under Fair Chance are the same as
those which would be allowed under the proposed new Title II-B. if additional funds
beyond Title II-B could be found for youth service activities, we could benefit from Fair
Chance's emphasis on targeting funds to areas with high numbers of economically
disadvantaged youth by establishing special JTPA concentration grants which would only
be available to a limited number of service delivery areas.
We all agree that the relevant entities business, community based organizations,
education agencial, and employment and training agencies should be brought together
so that resources can be combined to meet the complex needs of many of our youth.
The Ms were created to be pm convening bow for these relevant entities. Creating a
new coordinative body at the local level Is redundant. Fair Chance considers PICs as
simply en..ther group to be included in a new coordinative body. If this precedent were
established and a new coordinative body were called for in another piece of legislation
concerning human resource development, you would soon lose the impact of a
community-wide effort to try to fit all programs into a more rational delivery strategy.
177
174
National Alliance of Business Page 5
Performance randasik
Performance standards and their accomp ;Jig incentive systems establish the goals
and priorities of the JTPA training sys. They are powerful tools that can be used to
guide the system to provide the kind of training JTPA participants need and our
economy demands. It is certainly appropriate 'co look at a variety of approaches to
refining these tools.
first, we would recommend that the legislat.on be changed to drop therequirement that
governors distribute incentive grants "based on the degree by which the service delivery
areas exceed their Performance standards" (Sec. 202(b)(3)(B)]. In many instanles, this
requirement has served to encourage SDAs to serve a high proportion of job ready
individuals in order to reap the largest incentive rewards possible.
Cost standards also need to be reconsidered. We feel that costs must be measured and
reported in some form in order to guarantee that SDAs focus on program efleleney, but
It may be necessary to ref the power of the existing cost standards in order to
reduce the effect those stan,ards are having on training quality. We recommend that
the federal government continue to establish cost measures, and that states and SDAs
continue to report their f..spenditures, but that SDAtt not receive incentive grants for
exceeding these standards. Incentive rewards have encouraged some SDAs to drive
costs down below levels necessary for providing comprehensive services to more at-risk
individuals.
We feel that these changes would encourage service to the "hard-to-serve," and would
be preferable to your proposal to develop separate standards for hard-to-serve
individuals. No clear definition exists for separating the hard-to-serve from the rest of
the JTPA-eligible population.
175
Nitional Alliance of Business Page 6
Supportive Services
Disadvantaged participants usually have a variety of related needs which have to be met
in order for them to participate successfully in the JTPA program. They may have child
care or transportation needs, or health or emotional problems. Furthermore, bringing
JIPA participants to the skill levels required by the labor market may take s. long time.
During that time, the participants may need help meeting their current economic
requirements.
There is nothing magical about the 15 percent expenditure limitation, and the waiver
provisions of current law allow increases. While it is important for SDAs to have more
flexibility to provide support services, there is no justification for removing all
limitations. JTPA is primarily a training program. Many of the support services can be
funded by other pr ;rams; going so far as removing the expenditure cap might remove
all incentives for coordinating and leveraging other program funds. Better coordination
of services is key to good programs.
PROGRAM TARGETING
The JTPA system needs to focus Its scarce resources. Funds need to be concentrated in
areas w' he largest numbers of eligible individuals, and service delivery areas need to
target JS. .,..bes to those eligible individuals who can most benefit from a comprehensive
training program. Because it is unlikely that JTPA will ever be able to serve all those
eligible and in need of services, it is crucial that resources be used as effectively and
efficiently as possible.
1 7 9
176
Nuional Alliance of Business Page 7
Funding
We support your effort to increase the total amount of JTPA funding. As we testified
before your committee on September 22, 1988, funding cuts and inflation have resulted
in a eecrease in real dollars for JTPA of 22 percent between program years 1984 and
149. The JTPA Advisory Committee would target the increased funding to youth
services, you suggest splitting it between youth and adults. Either way, it is critical
that JTPA receive a new infusion of dollars.
NAB is also in accord with the JTPA Advisory Committee and with yourproposal that
the distribution of funds should better reflect the distribution of the eligible population
that greater a, -tight be placed on factors of economic disadvantage and less weight on
factors of unemployment in the allocation formulas. We think that yourproposal is
strong, and is a good departure point from which to iook at data availability and
reliability.
We also agree that there needs to be hold-harmiess provisions to both ease the system
into operation under the new allocation formula and then protect the system from any
large swings in funding which could destabilize local programs. However, we do not
support the proposal to guarantee to states an allotment equal to at least their 1989
fiscal year allotments. If fiscal constraints prevented JTPA funding from rising above
current levels, this requirement would leave state allotments static at their FY 1989
levels, and the proposed funding formuia would have no effect at the state level. Even
if JTPA funding were to increase, states should not be guaranteed a funding floor below
which they could never fall, even if their economic conditions improved marketily in
relatirm to other states.
1 Sp,
177
National Alliance of Business Page 8
Part_
While some argue that JTPA should not penalize those economically disadvantaged
individuals who have worked the hardest to achieve skills on their own, preliminary
research seems to indicate that serving the most job ready may be an ineffective use of
funds, as many of the job ready would have succeeded on their own without JTPA
intervention. Because of this concern, priority should be placed on serving those
individuals who have potential for success, but who would not be able to succeed xithout
JTPA intervention. The program should serve those who need some education or
training assistance in addition to placement help, and should minimize serving those who
seed direct placement help only.
The best way to accomplish this may well be an approach which combines exhorting the
system to serve eligible Individuals with skill deficit:10,es and providing the syst m with
incentives to serve these individuals. Incentives can be both financial, through
performance awards, and programmatic, through the relaxation of support services and
stipend limitations. Many of the pieces for such an approachare contained in your
proposal.
We support th., props -ed language providing special emphasis to hard-to-se. Kt
populations or individuals most-in-need of basic skills and employment trainini ervices.
This provides a degree of clarity about the goals of JT^A t'at was previously lacking.
We are concerned, however, that requiring all youth enrolled in year-round programs to
be deficient in basic skills may be too strict, and that establishing separate standards
for hard-to-serve individuals would be both cumbersome and unworkable.
We are also concerned about your proposal to allow SDAs to spend up to 10 percent of
their funds on "experimental programming for groups with special needs" and have such
1. 81
178
Natiocul Alliar" of Basin= Page 9
funds be exempt from performance standards. While this might encourage service tc
these Individuals, we are concerned about creating numerous set-aside programs which
limit local flexibility. Research and demonsb .ion projects testing a variety of service
stra:egles for hard-to-serve individuals are continually being oprated, and with
increased federal attention to dissemination, these strategies are available for
replication. SDAs can implement these service strategies without fear of failing their
performance standards. Furthermore, governors currently have the discretion to allow
ZDAs to operate programs not subject to performance standards with any 6 percent
incentive funds the SDAs receive.
I suggest that, rather than encouraging SDAs to serve the hard-to-serve through set-
asides, you change the current legislation ,,:hich allows governors to provide incentive
grants for serving hard-' i-serve individuals, so that it rewires governors to provide
grunts on that basis. Additionally, your proposal to allow SDAs to spend up to an
additional 10 percent of their funds on support services for those individuals receiving
long term services will encourage SDAs to provide the appropriate services to a more
at-risk population, without unnecess3Aly complicating the JTPA administrative
structure.
PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCILS
Mr. Chairman, we want to thank you for retaining the provision of current law related
to the private sector majority and privets. sector chairperson on the private industry
councils. The ''rent requirement was agreed by all the experts as necessary to get,
and maintain, top level business leadership in the community. It was also deemed
critical for maintainin3 the relative independence of the council in the partnership with
local elected officials. The perception of such independence in a partnership world
182
179
National Mance of Business Page 10
certainly have been undermined if, for instance, the chairperson were chosen from
among the public agency members of the PIC. If it were chaired by a government
agency official, the council could easily be viewed as just another arm of government,
ant the progress toward building credibility for the program in the employer community
would be lost.
NAB is convliced that public/private partnerships are essential if tne objectives of
JTPA are to be achieved. The design of 3TPA purposefully established a formal working
structure for business in partnership with local elected officials. It is an unprecedented
effort to leverage private resources and expertise fir public purposes, and in order for it
to succeed, It is crucial that the private sector remain a full partner with the local
elected officials in the design and implementation of employment and training
programs.
There is strong evidence that business involvement has had positive benefits. In
roundtable discussions we held during 1989, both JTPA professionals and volunteers
irdicated to us that business participation in has made a substantial and positive
difference to the system. Representatives from both public and pt's e sectors told us
that business involvement has helped to improve the public's perception o! the program;
created an entree to the local employer community; leveraged additional dollars, both
public ond private, for the program; brought more efficient and cost effective
management to program operation; and ensured that training and program services were
directed to private sector occupations demanded in the local communities.
White we are pleased with the way you and your staff resolved the private sector
composition and chairmanship of the PICs, we are still concerned about setting such
,strict membership requirements. The urivate industry council was never intended to be
8
180
tiationgl All.ancecamin" esa Page 11
broadly representative of the population at large nor of all the potential groups
interested In Job training, rather it was intended to be a deliberative policy body,
capable of establishing a human development strategy which could be supported and
Implemented throughout the community. For this to occur, it is crucial that PIC
members 1- leaders in their communities, leaders who can cor.tribute substantial skills,
knowledge, and resources to the development of a local policy.
Under representation of any particular point of view or expertise, whether it is labor,
community based organizations, education, public service agencies, or vocational
rehabilitation, is a serious problem. But it cannot be solved through strict percentage
requirements. All communities are different, and strict quotas are pure to prevent some
councils from building the best membership posiible. Nationally, voresentation on the
PCs closely resembles that which you are proposing. According to a survey we
conducted in 1973, 16 percent of the representatives on the average PIC are from
organized labor and community based organizations, and 24 percent are from education,
rehabilitation, economic development, and the employment service. This .uggests to me
that variations across the country reflect community differences, rattwe than any
significant under representation.
We suggest that, instead of legislation enforcing strict percentages, local communities
be encouraged to ensure that elected officials carefully exercise their appointment
authority and choose representatives from those groups crucial for the effective
functioning of the private industry councils.
181
Nati,mstl Anima:cot Besisuss Page 12
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR EMPLOYMENT POLICY
Consistent policies for federally funded workforce development programs are
indispensable for achieving coordination at the state aid local levels. Fragmentation of
the federal policy process among a host of congressional committees and federal
agencies poses reformidable obstacle to the coordination of related programs.
Consequently, there is a need for a public/private partnership at the federal level to
coordinate policies across a broad range of federal programs and institutions.
Though the National Commission for Employment P., licy has generally not functioned in
this capacity, it is our view that a revitalized Commission could play an important hole
in overcoming the fragmentation of workforce development policy at the federal level.
Instead of abolishing the Commission, we suggest that you develop a strategy for
strengthening and directing its activities. Its membership should include the top leaders
in the executive and legislative branches responsible for employment, education, and
related Issue3, as well as high-level business executives, memoers of organized labor,
representatives of community based organizations, and academics with national
prestige. Instead of producing reports on narrow issues, the Commission would be
responsible for developing a national policy on workforce issues and ensuring that
federal legislation and policies supported a coordinative approach to implementing the
new poll.
We feel that this concept deserves more thought. We intend to develop it further over
the coining month, and will share our ideas with your staff.
185
182
Maim's! Alliance of Butintss
CONCL1:131011
Page 13
I think that all of us involved with JTPA have a right to be proud of our
accomplishments. JTPA has served approximately 5 million individuals, 93 percent of
whom were economically disadvantaged. In the most recent prvgrara year, 72 percent
of the adults leaving JTPA programs entered employment, and 64 percent of the adults
were employed three months after they left the program. Sixty:three percent of adults
on welfare entered employment after participating in JTPA, and positive results were
achieved with 80 percent of the youth who participated.
We know that we must do better. After five years of experience with JTPA, it seems
clear that some refinements are due in determining the services to be provided, and in
targeting on the clients to be served. In my view, many of the issues surrounding JTPA
reflect a lack of clarity about the program's ultimate goals and objectives.
Mr. Chairman, what I have laid out here is a relatively broad response tc your proposed
JTPA amendments. J7PA should be providing training services that are intensive and
extensive enough to mike a significant difference in the lives of those served by JTPA,
and JTPA should target services to those economically disadvantaged individuals with
basic and employability skills deficiencies that can be addressed through program
services. My staff Is in the process of putting together some more detalIed suggestions
on how your legislation can best help the JTPA system meet these goals, and we will be
submitting them to you shortly.
As you continue to refine Clese JTPA amendments, I want to reiterate the importance
of preserving the special qualities of the Job Training Partnership Act. JTPA has
represented : positive step in federal policy making. The principles of public/private
.1 6
183
oittional Alla= of Business Page 14
partnerships, coordinated service delivery, program accountability, and decentralized
administration have served the JTPA system well.
We are even more convinced today than we were when JTPA was passed that these
elements are crucial to all federal human resource development programming they
should be strengthened not only in JTPA, but in vocational education, the Job
Opportunities and Basic Skills program created in the welfare reform legislation passed
last year, and other related programs. We've elaborated on our vision of an integrated
human resource development system based on these four principles in our publication
Shaving Tomorrow's Workforce: A Le -,rshio Agenda for the 90's, wtietl w., will
provide to Members and staff of the committee.
I want to thank you for inviting me to testify on your proposed amzndments. I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
184
Senator SIMON. I thank you very mach, Bill Kolberg. Frequently,these commissions and advisory groups don't accomplish much. Un-fortunately you have just cited one that hasn't come to grips withthings.
This advisory group obviously just didn't do a superficial job. Youreally dug in, and I hope you will convey my thanks to the othermembers of the advisory group. Again, I just saw the report lastnight for the first time. I just skimmed through it, but you obvious-ly did more than just sit around drinking tea. You really did a job.
Mr. KOLBERG. Jack and I and the other members certainly appre-ciate that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator SIMON. Jack Klepinger, we are happy to have you backhere again.
Mr. KLEPINGER. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to testi-fy on your S. 543, the Job Training Partnership Act Amendmentsof 1989. As you know, I am Jack Klepinger, and I am a memberand past chair of the Weber-Morgan Counties Private IndustryCouncil in Ogden, Utah.
I am appearing here today on behalf of the National Associationof Private Industry Councils, NAPIC, on whose board of directors Iserve as chairman. Our membership includes some 390 PICs andseveral State job training coordinating councils.
As you know, NAPIC strongly supports the current,JTPA statuteand its requirements for a business ma'ority on the PIC and thelaw's further specification that the PIC chair be from among thebusiness representatives on the PIC. We are pleased that you havedecided to maintainsthese featuces and we encourage you to contin-
support them.a.3 your bill moves forward.a member of the National JTPA Advisory Committee, I am
pused that our report, "Working Capital: JTPA Investments forthe 1990s," was released this week. And in the main, I support theadvisory .committee recommendations, and it appears that in devel-oping S. '543, you have come to similar conclusions.
The advisory committee concludes that PICs are a vital resourcetoward reaching our shared goals. JTPA has always been a dynam-ic and innovative system, and in the face of labor shortages manyPICs began to restructure programs to reach a harder to serveclient group.
Scores of PICs began to restructure summer youth programs toemphasize remediation and drop-out prevention well before Con-gress mandated such changes in 1986. PICs have been active part-ners in State welfare reform from the very beginning.
In short, Mr. Chairman. we need to recognize the contributionsof the PIC model, strengthen PICs where necessary, and build onthe PIC partnership as we focus ch. the job training needs and op-portunities before us.
We share your goal that labor, community-based organizations,education, and the public sector be represented by top-level com-munity leadership. PIC business representatives want the top deci-sionmakers from the other sectors at the table with them.
The policy issue before the subcommittee is whether such leader-ship is more likely to be forthcoming if minimum percentages fromeach sector are mandated, as in the bill before the committee.
88
185
We continue to believe that this objective will not be enhancedby such a requirement. The vast majority of PICs have the broadrepresentation you seek. NAPIC is concerned that the proposedchange will not be efeective in solving the inequities that exist in afew places, but may cause disruptions in the many places wherecommunity representation is equitable and effective une -7 theflexibility that current law provides.
The current Summer Youth Employment Program may nolonger be the most effective method of assisting disadvantagedyouth in completing their schooling and making a successful transi-tion into the Workforce. We support the year-around and summerprograms to give PICs the maximum incentive to use these fundsunder a coherent strategy to more effectively servE at-risk youth.
JTPA can serve only a small percentage of those who might ben-efit from the program. Consequently, resources must be targetedand priorities for service set. This is a uifficult job for PICs andlocal elected officials, but a job that is most appropriately per-formed at the local level.
PICs must focus on basic skill deficiencies among the economical-ly disadvantaged, and we support your efforts to make this a clear-er expectation of the JTPA systf.m. At the same time, whatt er themix of clients and services, we cannot afford to lose sight of thefact that job placement and job retention are the bottom-line indi-cators of success.
Business has come forth to support JTPA because it is perform-ance-driven, not process-driven, and the performance we measureis job placement, wages, and retention. No changes to JTPA shouldlose sight of this simple fact.
As we redirect the emphasis of JTPA, we nr al to understandthat it will take longer and cost more to get results similar to thosewe currently obtain; and performance standards must reflect thisfact.
Mr. Chairman, we support your efforts to incr, se funding forJTPA. Inflation and funding cuts have reduced local allocati ins toa point in many service delivery areas that threatens the basic jobtraining infrt,,,ucture. We are working on a crucial national pri-ority and an increase in funding is in order.
In summary, NAPIC believes that JTPA has been a successfulprogram that can and does respond to the priorities of Congressand the Executive Branch. The partnership between PICs and localelected officials has matured and represents a unique opportunityto advance long-held goals of better coordination of related educa-tion and training programs, but additional national support forstrengthening the PIC institution to take on new roles wouldappear timely.
PIC volunteers are proud to endorse JTPA to their colleagues be-cause it is a job training and placement program, but we recognizethat a job training program in the 1990s is an education -ram,also. PICs need to provide basic education services, rea_ ru-ing, computing, .problem-solving, so that new workers can uieet. therising skill requirements of the workplace.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting NAPIC to comment, andHook forward to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Klepinger follows:]
1a9
186
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCILS
S* TEMENT OF
JACK KLEPINCER
OU BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCILS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ON THE
JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AMENDMENTS OF 2989
(S. 543)
MARCH 16. 1989
Suite 800 1201 New York Avenue, KW., Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone 200289-2950
.190
187
Thank you Hr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. We
appreciate the opportunity to testify on 5.543. The "Job Training
Partnership Act Youth Employment Amendments of 1989."
I am Jack Klepinger. member and past chairman of the
Weber/Horgan Counties Private Industry Council. Inc. in Ogden.
Utah. I am appearing today on behalf of the National Association
of Private Industry Councils (NAPIC). on whose Board of Directors
I serve as Chairman.
NAPIC is the only national membership organization speaking
on behalf of and serving the nation's private industry councils.
Our membership includes some 390 PICs and several state job
training coordinating councils (SjICCs).
Before commenting on the bill before the subcommittee. I
would first like to commend you. Hr. Chairman. for the personal
involvement you have displayed and the open dialogue you have
encouraged as the Subcommittee has discharged its duties in
overseeing the Job Training Partnership Act.
As you know. NAPIC strongly supports the current JTPA
statute in !ts requirement for a business majority on the PIC and
the law's further specification that the PIC Chair be from among
the business representatives on the PIC. NAPIC has supported
these provisions in previoua hearings before this subcommittee.
1
191
188
We know that ;:ny. PICs. as well as business volunteers on PICs.
have contacted you in support of current PIC composition
language.
PIC composition was fully revi. d and carefully cr. .0 in
the original JTPA legislation. The success of the existing
for elation is reflected in the tens of thousands of business men
and women who serve or have rirved on PICs. the strong
partnership that exists today between PIC° and local elected
officials. and the active support that PICs receive from their
non-business membership including educators. organized labor.
community based leaders and public sector administrators.
It is appropriate that your Subcommittee review the
structure and composition of PICs as established by JTPA. And.
we are pleased that you decided to maintain the business majority
and the business chairperson requirements of the low after your
careful review of this issue. We encourage you to continue to
support these provisions as your hi? moves forward.
While we believe that the current PIC structure should be
maintained. we also recognize that job training, including :'TPA.
must respond to changing nt,rds among target groups. as well as
the changing workplace realities that private employers are
facing today and will face in the future. We support your
efforts to make JTPA as effe-tive e.onomic tool as possible.
2
1 9 2
189
and lock forward to working with you on the ey challenge for all
of us -- preparing all Americans for the job, of the next decade
Ad the next century.
JTPA is under review in CoLgress and by a special advisory
committee established by the U.S. Department of Labor. among
others. These attempts to take stock of where we are and where
we should be going are important and necessary. In fact. NAPIC
is encouraging PICa to perform similar examinations of their work
at the community level. After all, to the extent that
redirection is warranted, it will work best when local decision
makers see the need for and support this redirection.
For the past several months. I have been a member of the
national JTPA Advisory Committee convened by the U.S. Department
of Labor. Among the 38 Committee members were three other PIC
business representatives and two state council chairs, also from
the private sector. The Committee's report. Working Capital:
ST.PA Investments for the 90's. was released this week. Our
report sets out a comprehensive proposal for strengthening job
training through better targeting of services and resources.
intensified investments in training, clearer program performance
measures and capacity building among staff and policy making
bodies that undergird job training.
In the main. I support the Advisory Comm tee
3
97-712 - 89 - 7 1 9
190
recommendations. and it appears that is developing S. 543. you
have come to similar conclusions.In this respect, it is
important to note that a great many individuals in the business
community and in the PIC system share your goals for job training
in the 1990's and beyond. We may disagree on some of the
structural details, but it is encouraging to note that we share a
common goal.
At the same time. we are disturbed that many find it
necessary to criticize the past contributions of the JTPA system
in order to make the case that new directions should now be
considered.
If we look at the context in which JTPA and PICs have
evolved. we will note that the recession of the early 1980's was
ending as JTPA was implemented. As we moved into a period of
recovery and job growth. Congress. the Administration and
business groups emphasized the impc,rtance of putting large
numbers of people back to -Jork. Many aspects of JTPA program
structure. including performance standards. and cost limitation
features, also favored a low-cost. high ;erformance system.
Over the past six years, placement rate'. which were higher
than anticipated almost immediately, have continued to climb,
while costs per placement have progressively diminished. This
occurred while JTPA served substantially more than the 90 percent
".
4
4) 4.,k
A -
191
economically disadvantaged required under the Act.
At the same time. JTPA has always been a dynamic and
innovative system. In the face of labor shortages. many PICs
began to restructure programs to reach a harder-to-serve client
group at least two-years ago. Scores of PICs began to
restructure summer jobs programs to emphasize remediation and
drop-out prevention well before Congress mandated such changes in
1986. And PICs have been active partners in state welfare reform
from the beginning.
Yes, it is time to take stock of where we are and to begin
to position job training to respond to th3 workforce and
demographic realities of the next century. Yes, there have been
problems under JTPA in a few places. Yes, we have made mistakes
from time to time. But the big picture is largely positive.
Thousands of private and public sector individuals have
invested their time and expertise in the PIC. And this
investment her pain off. The P/C-local elected official
partnership has worked and gotten stronger over the years.
Every major public interest group now supports the policy and
oversight body we know as PIC. as doss virtually every business
organization in the country.
In short. Mr. Chairman. we need to recognize the
5
192
contributions of the PIC model. strengthen PICs where necessary.
and build on the PIC partnership model as we focus on the job
training needs and opportunities before us.
Private Industry Council Composition
As noted in our past testimony. we share your goal that
labor. community based organizations. education and the public
sector be represented by top-level community leadership. PIC
business representatives want the top decision-makers from the
other sectors at the table with them. In this regard. it needs
to be noted that. in most cases. the appointments made by local
elected officials have given PICs this leadership.
Tha policy issue before the subcommittee is whether such
leadership is more likely to be forthcoming if minimum
percentages from each sector are mandated_as in the bill before
the committee. We continue to believe that this objective will
not be enhanced by such a requirement. Quite simply. federal
legislation cannot mandate that community leaders be named to the
PIC or require that they serve if asked.
In addition. PIC chairs attending NAPIC's recent annual
meeting informed us that they were concerned that a strict quota
system fails to account for the differences among communities.
In particular. some rural communities will find it difficult to
6
193
build the best membership possible under a quota system.
Finally, a nunber of PICs noted that they are grappling with
conflict of interest issues in the allocation of resources and
that the strict percentages may compel them to add more PIC
members who are funded through JTPA.
We need to note that most PICs are very close to or above
the percentages you are suggesting. Therefore, rather than
legislation to enforce a particular percentage, we would prefer a
strategy of encouraging local elected officials to make
appointments that enhance the goals of JTPA and the PIC system.
We would be happy to meet with your staff to discuss this
question further.
But above all. Hr. Chairman. it needs to be stated that the
vast majority of PICs appear to have the broad representation you
seek. Relationships between the sectors appear to be harmonious
and cooperative. NAPIC is concerned that the proposed change
will not be effective in solving the inequities that exist in a
few places; but may cause disruptions in the many places where
community representation is equitable and effective under the
flexibility that current law provides.
Finally, under the issue of PIC composition, I would like to
note one other point that the Subcommittee may wish to explore
further. As you know, the PIC is not the same as JTPA.
7
194
Specifically. the PIC has certain coordination mandates that go
beyond the strict confines of JTPA. Most notable are
requirements for joint plan approval with the Employment virvice.
and consultation with welfare agencies on job training contracts
under the new JOBS program. In addition. many PICs are engaged
in joint planning with secondary school systems. postsecondary
vocational education schools. community literacy efforts and
more.
Those of us in the PIC movement support such efforts to
develop PICs as business-led policy making bodies whose highest
contribution can be that of mobilizing scarce resources in the
most efficient manner through program coordination and
integration strategies. But if we are to evolve into labor
market boards. we need staff whose primary role is to work on
education and training issues in our communities. I am concerned
that JTPA staff -- who are first and foremost accountable for the
JTPA program -- cannot fill this role under current
administrative constraints. In fact. JTPA should not be solely
responsible for providing the professional cadre necessary to
planning and implementing a community's long range goals.
Instead. I would ask that you look at providing a modest sum to
assist PICs in these roles aside from current JTPA resources.
Again. we would be pleased to meet with your staff to discuss
thiu issue in ms, detail.
8
195
Youth Programs
Many PICs have noted that the current summer youth
employment program may no longer be the most effective method of
assisting disadvantaged youth in completing their schooling and
making a successful transition into the work force. All PICs now
operate a summer remediation program for youth behind in basic
skills. But more ca.i be done to improve youth programs.
We support combining the year-round and summer programs to
give PICs +se maximum incentive to use these funds under a
coherent strategy to more effectively serve at-risk youth.
Challenge Grants
We share your concern that more emphasis needs to be ;laced
on helping young people make the transition from school to work.
However, we question the need Zor a demonstration program at this
time. We would prefer to see these resources dedicated to a
redesigned program for at-risk youth.
In addition, we are concerned that the challenge grant
program views PICs as one among many community institutions that
might play a role in the program. PICs are already the convening
body that the program envisOns creating. As noted earlier, we
must build on the PIC whenever possible. Efforts to creat2 a new
9
199
196
partnership for each program that comes along are counterproduc-
tive because they threaten to undermine the larger goal of
building business/education/community partnerships that can
effectively address labor force issues in a community.
A Redirection of Services
JTPA can serve only a small percentage of those who might
benefit from the program. Consequently. resources must be
targeted and priorities for service set. This is a difficult job
for PICs and local elected officials: but a job that is most
appropriately performed at the local level.
There is no doubt that some of the clients in JTPA programs
would succeed without the program. It is also clearly the case
that some individuals have a multiplicity of problems that make
them very poor candidates for a job training program until some
of their other problems can be resolved. Priority for JTPA
services should go to those individuals who have potential for
success. but who need help with education or job training. if they
are to succeed. For those who are job ready. we need a
reinvigorated employment service: and I encourage you to examine
how to best deploy this system for those who need transition
assistance the most.
American business increasingly recognizes that our education
10
200
197
and job training systems must put special emphasis on those
deficient in basic skills, including communication and problem
solving skills. PICA must focus oh these deficiencies among the
economically disadvantaged. and we support your efforts to make
this a clearer expectation of the JTPA system.
At the same time. whatever the mix of clients and services;
we cannot afford to lose sight of the tact that job placement and
job retention are the bottom-line indicators of success.
Business h s come forth to support JTPA because it is performance
driven, not process driven, and the performance we measure is job
placement. wages. and retention. No changes to JTPA should lose
sight of this simple facet of JTPA that makes it so valuable to
both the unemployed and the business community.
Performance Standards
As we redirect the emphasis of JTPA. we need to understand
that it will take longer, and cost more. to get results similar
to those we currently obtain.In this regard, your bill has the
Secretary of Labor establish separate performance standards for
the hard-t--serve. Rather than two sets of standards. which we
fear would be confusing. it seems that the current standards
could be adjusted to account for the individuals actually served.
11
20y
198
Funding
Hr. Chairman. we support your effortn to increase funding
for JTPA. Inflation and funding cuts have reduced local
allocations to a point in many service delivery areas that
threatens the basic job training infrast,ucture. PICs can't help
fulfill the promiaa of a job for everyoLe who wants one and is
appropriately trained, if we don't have the money to do this job.
Congress ultimately sets priorities through the funding process.
We are workinm on a crucial national priority and an increase in
funding is in order.
In addition. HAPIC agrees that funding should be based upon
the relative incidence of eligibility in a particular area. Your
proposed formula changes, that increase the weight of the
disadvantaged population factor, would appear to do just that.
Having said thia, we note that any formula will be viewed as
favoring cities or rural areas or one region of the country over
another. Therefore, any change in fund distribution should be
phased-in over a period of years; and, ideally done in step with
an increase in total .1TPA funding so as not to cause serious
disruptions in local programs.
A related problem which we have previously discussed with
the Subcommittee is the fluctuation in funding under the current
formula. Your proposal to provide a floor of 90 percent and a
12
2 02
199
ceiling of 110 percent each program year is a modification t
JTPA which we support.
In summary, HAPIC believes that JTPA has been a successful
Program that can and does respond to the priorities of Congress
and the Executive Branch. Business support of and service on
Private industry councils has been one important reason for the
impressive accomplishments of The partnership between PICa
and local elected officials has matured and represents a unique
opportunity- to advance long-held goals of better coordination of
related education and training programa. But additional national
support for strengthening the PIC institution to take on new
roles would appear timely.
PIC volunteers are proud to endorse JTPA to their colleagues
becuca it is a job training end placement program. But we
recognize that a job training program in the 1990'c is an
education program also. As traditional sources of new workers
erode. employers will increasingly need to reach out to the less
qualified to fill entry level positions. PICS need to provide
basic education services -- reading, writing, computing. problem
solving, etc. -- as well an a knowledge of workplace
expectations. Co that these new workers can meet the rising skill
requirements of the workplace. HAPIC looks forward to working
with the Subcommittee indeveloping strategies, programs and
resources that transforms our shared vision of a productive job
13
2t)00 ..,
200
for everyone who vents one into reality.
Hr. Chairman. thank you for inviting NAPIC to comment on
your proposed amendments. We look forward to working with you
further on the issues rain, Thia concludes ny remarks. I
would be happy to answer ay.y questions.
14
201
Senator SIMON. I thank both of you for your leadership. You areboth making a great contribution to the Nation.
I couldn't help but notice on page 3 of yot r statement, Mr. Kle-pinger, you said, "In the main, I support the advisory committeerecommendations." As I glanced through the report, I did not seeany minority reports or anything like that. I would be interested inwhere you may differ from the advisory committee report.
Mr. KLEPINGER. I think that as I speak from a NAPIC position,recognizing that we are representing many, many PICs throughoutthe Nation, that to say that that report is totally complete and sup-ported by every PIC is something that may not be true.
There may be issues that they would not support, and thereforein our support of them we have to recognize that these differencesmay occur. I am a little self-centered in the sense that I helpedwrite that document and I personally feel very good about theissues that are there.
Senator SIMON. But not one of the 15 recommendations or how-ever many there, that you feel very strongly that the advisory com-mittee made a mistake in making the recommendation?
Mr. KLEPINGER. No. That is correct.Senator SIMON. OK. I would appreciate if bcth of youand this
will be true for our next two witnesses, if you could just take thelegislation that we have right now and just say on Line 23, page 3, Ithink it would be better if you had "x" here, because we will begetting to the point very shortly where we want to be working onthe specifics. We want to mark up the legislation, we hope, at theend of May.
The end of May sounds like a long way off, but it will be herevery, very shortly. So if you could both do that, that would bemuch appreciated, and I appreciate your testimony here today. Butmore than that, I appreciate your leadership. Thank you very, verymuch.
Mr. KOLBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Senator SIMON. Our final two witnesses are Bill Shinn, the Per-
sonnel Director of the Louis Rich Company of Newberry, SouthCarolina, for the National Rehabilitation Association, and SusanDunn, the Assistant Commissioner of the Employment Security De-partment for the State of Washington, and the Vice Chair of theState Liaison for the National Governors Association.
We thank you both very much for being here. Mr. Shinn, we willhear from you first.
STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM SHINN, PERSONNEL AND EMPLOY-MENT RELATIONS MANAGER, LOUIS RICH CO., ON BEHALF OFTHE NATIONAL REHABILITATION ASSOCIATION; AND SUSANDUNN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, WASHINGTON STATE EM-PLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THESTATE JTPA LIAISON ORGANIZATION
Mr. SHINN. OK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I would like tothank you for the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee.I am employed with Louis Rich Company, a poultry nrocessing op-eration in Newberry, South Carolina. We have appruzmately 1,100employees.
205
202
You will be pleased to know that many of these employees wereinitially hired under the provisions of the Job Training Partner-ship Act. I believe my company shows that JTPA is an effectivetool for employment not only in the large cities of our nation, butalso in smaller, more rural communities such as Newberry, SouthCarolina.
I support your amendments and could easily spend my remain-ing time talking to you about the benefits of JTPA to my company,but my written statement adequately covers that. With your per-mission, I believe it would be more beneficial to tell you what ithas meant to three of our employees, Edward, Sherrie, and Phyllis.
Edward is a 26-year-old black male and is mentally retarded.Three years ago, his aging father sought the help of the local voca-tional rehabilitation office to assist his son in becoming gainfullyemployed. Edward's father knew he was nearing the end of thistime and was concerned about his son's future.
Through the efforts of the local vocational rehabilitation office,we employed Edward and trained him to perform a job on one ofour production lines. Edward's father passed away several monthsago, but Edward is still with us, performs his job well, and is agood employee. His father's wish came true because Edward nowlives on his own and is financially independent.
Sherrie is a 24-year-old black female who has been totally deafsince birth. Sherrie also came to us through the local vocational re-habilitation office. Sherrie is an outgoing person and was an excel-lent sprinter in high school, and even participated in the SpecialOlympics.
Although Sherrie is totally deaf, she is an excellent lip-readerand we used this to train her to perform her first job. Sherrie isnow starting her third year with us and has advanced into ahigher-paying position.
Phyllis is a 24-year-old black female who lost her entire righthand in an automobile accident. When the vocational rehabilita-tion office referred her to us, it was her first job. Our safety man-ager accepted Phyllis as a challenge and was determined to placeher in a productive situation.
He designed a brace to fit her right arm. To this, a special knifecould be attached. With just a slight extension of her trainingperiod, Phyllis became more and more proficient at her work. Thelocal vocational rehabilitation staff is continuing to refine thebrace and make it more comfortable and efficient.
These are just a few of our workers whom I believe have benefit-ted from the JTPA program. I urge you to remind your colleaguesin the Senate that training programs such as JTPA are truly aninvestment in America's future.
Just as my company in South Carolina has learned, Americamust make investments today to bring the disadvantaged and dis-abled citizens into the mainstream of our society. The doorway tothat inclusion is through training.
Thank you again for your important work and your personal in-terest hi this Act and ior the invitation to appear before you today.Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shinn follows:]
2 C
203
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
MARCH 16, 1989
BY
William (Bill) ShinnMr.
Personnel and Employment Relations Manager
Louis Rich Company, Newberry, S.C.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this
Subcommittee with regard to the "Job Training Partnership Act
Youth Employment Amendments of 1989". Copies of my written
testimony have been provided to this Subcommittee. I speak to
you not as a technical expert on these provisions, but rather
from the point of view of a private business operatim which has
successfully utilized the Job Training Partnership Act. I also
wish to comment on our experiences with hiring individuals with
disabilities, a target population which should continue to be
emphasized in this and all other training and labor provisions.
I am employed with Louis Rich Company, a poultry processing
operation in Newberry, South Carolina. We have approximately
1,100 employees. You will bs pleased to know that many of these
employees were initially employed under the provisions of the Job
Training Partnership. Act. I thus appear before you today to
20?
TESTIMONY EnFORE THE SENATEMarch 14, 1989Page -2-
confirm that JTPA unrks in South Carolina. I suspect you hear
more complaints and criticism than you do words of appreciation.
In case you would like feedback, this legislation is an
effective tool for employment nut only in the 1arg..1 cities of our
nation, but also in smaller, more rural communities such as
Newberry, _South Carolina. Thank you for ypur- interest in job
training. It is important for America, and your efforts are
appreciated.
With retard to your proposed composition of the private
industry councils iiIC's), we believe that increasing the variety
of groups represented on the PXC will serve to improve
coordination within community-based organizations. It should
also serve to create a better sense of local "ownership", whtch
will lead to greater employer support for these programs. I
particularly applaud the specific inclusion of representatives
of rehabilitation agencies on the PIC. Our company has had
personal experience with our Vocational Rehabilitation
Department and has successfully employed many workers with
disabilities. Vocational Rehabilitation agencies represent a
great resource and should be included. We would also urge you to
clairify that Vocational Rehabilitation Agency represe.itation on
the State Jon Training Coordinating Council is mandated in all
states.
20E
205
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATEMarch 14, 1989Page -3-
would like to share withthis Sulocommittee our thought:- on
another important matter that is closely related. Ths Company I
represent is beginning to experience some of the same ,droblems
of recruitment of qualified workers that many oths: privateemployers are experiencing throughout America. We are all going
to face increasingly difficult challenges in recruitih; workers.It is already a major problem in many areas of our nation, adgrows more critical with each passing year.
There is an interesting ironyhowever, that I wish to call
to your attention. You are, of course, aware of TorStatistics which predict critical labor shortages. One studysuggests America will need as.many
as 500,000 /immigrant; workers
each year, by the year 2001. At the same time business andindustry is facing personnel shortages which are only going toworsen, literally millions of Americans with disabilities aresitting at home...unemployed.
A recent Harris Poll found that
approximately 66% of Americans of working age with disabilities-are unemplced. Of those who are employed, another 10% areunderemployed or work only part-time. This is a terrible tragedy
for them, and a huge economic waste for America.
You have an opportunity to address both of these problems.These JTPA provisions can, with your continued recognition andlegislative encouragement, help solve both problems. I know,
209
206
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATEMarch 14, 1989Page -4-
from personal experience that workers who also happen to have a
disability can become valuable employees. We need only look
around my on ^ompany to see evidence of that fact. I have
several examples I can share with you, but the limits of time
don't permit me to adequately convey to you our Company's
conviction that qualified workers can, should, and we believe in
the future must include workers with disabilities.
Your provisions to include individuals with "multiple
barriers to employment", not just those economically
disadvantaged, will open doors of opportunity for increasing
numbers of Americans. Your attention to these individuals is
particularly important and such opportunities will bear fruit
for years, if not generations to come.
Your concept of a "Challenge Grant" within this Act to
include "harder to serve' populations is also to be commended.
We must recognize that no community, certainly not a great
nation, can afford to fail to target "hard-to-serve" youth. It
might be easier, in the short run, to move on to more quickly
fertile grounds, but in the long run our economic future depends
on including more and more of our total population in competitive
employment.
As an employer, I also support your inclusion of basic
skills and workplace competencies as a measure of performance
210
207
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATEMarch 14, 1989Page -5-
standards. Long-term placement and retention of unsubsidized
employment is an important measure of this program's success.
There are two many "pretend work" situations. As an employer, we
support your emphasis on "real work" competencies.
We also believe that cooperative efforts between agencies
serving youth must also include participants from the private
sector. We applaud your recognition of this need in your
provisions.
In closing, I would like to remind you that in times of
financial difficulty, such as we now face with the federal
deficit, it becomes tempting to seek short-term savings. I urge
you to remind your colleagues in the Senate that training
programs, such as JTPA, are truly an investment in America's
future. Just as my company in South Carolina has learned,
America must also make investments today if we are to reaprewards tomorrow. Disadvantaged and disabled citizens must be
brought into the mainstream of our society. The doorway to that
inclusion is through training.
Thank you again for your important work and personal
interest in this Act, and for the invitation to appear before you
today.
211.
208
Senator SIMON. I thank you, Mr. Shinn, and let me say thatwhile your statement is a tribute to JTPA, it is also a tribute toyou and your company and to the vocational rehabilitation pro-gram in your State.
And I note that you are the personnel manager there, and whatthey are doing wouldn't be happening without Bill Shinn's help, Iam sure. So I thank you. I wish we had more people around likeyou.
Mr. SHINN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Senator SIMON. Susan Dunn, we are very happy to have you
here.Ms. DUNN. Thank you, Chairman Simon and Senator Adams. I
am Susan Dunn, an Assistant Commissioner with Employment Se-curity in Washington State. Yes, that is the State with Alar-freeapples, and it is currently celebrating its centennial and I hope youwill come to join us, as you did a couple of springs ago.
But today I represent the State JTPA Liaison Association. Thatis 55 people who administer the State JTPA programs on behalf ofthe governors of the States and territories. We meet periodically todiscuss issues, best practices, and I am here today to present ourconsensus positions on many of your proposed amendments.
Overall, we concur with most of the proposed- amendments be-cause support for the basic principles which have made this pro-gram so successful remains intact. We know, however, that refine-ments are needed.
We especially like your refinements in- eligibility criteria, includ-ing the 10 to 15 percent window which we promise we won't abuse.We also like the year-around youth programming, including thebasic skills assistance which is so necessary; in addition, the reallo-cation of funds between States when States do not maintain ade-quate levels of expenditure. And, of course, we appreciate the in-creased fund authorization levels in your proposals.
Now, you know that with the time permitted today, I must con-centrate most of my oral testimony on the issues of special concernto governors and their State JTPA administrators, the issues whichwe believe need your further study and consideration.
The State Liaison Association is concerned with the State set-asides. While we support separate adult and youth titles, bymoving 40 percent of the Title IIA funds to Title IIB, the fundingbase for State set-asides is reduced by 40 percent.
Undoubtedly, Governor Celeste and I will be the only ones to tes-tify on the effect that this 40-percent reduction would have on thegovernors and their State administrators to carry out our responsi-bilities.
The 5-percent set-aside for State administration until these pro-posed amendments has been adequate for medium and large Statesto meet our mandated responsibilities. We believe that our abilityto support our State councils, set State policy and administrativerequirements, monitor and audit local program operations, producespecialized labor market information, and provide technical assist-ance has greatly contributed to the successful performance and,yes, relative lack of negative publicity in JTPA programs.
As an association, we also believe that the small States havebeen suffering all along from a lack of sufficient administrative
219
209
funding, and our association has gone on record supporting a mini-mum allocation for all States.With the set-aside and formula allocation amendments you haveproposed, this must be reviewed now for all States, especially sinceother proposed amendments place increased responsibilities on thegovernors for more performance standards, more areas to monitor,more labor market information, and more follow-up information.Our association, as the most interested party, would be pleasedthrough the National Governor Association staff to work with youon this issue, which we believe can be easily resolved.Next is the change in the allocation-formula's effect on fundingto the States and within States. Understandably, our associationwas unable to reach consensus on these revised formulas becauseinevitably there are big winners and big losers. What we do over-whelmingly support is the necessity for the hold harmless provi-sions to ensure gradual versus dramatic funding shifts.
To illustrate the possible effects of these allocation amendments,I would like to use Washington State as an example. In terms ofpopulation, we are a medium to small-sized State with an economi-cally disadvantaged population in relative proportion to the rest ofthe nation.In terms of unemployment, we have higher than average. Ingood times, we still lag behind the East and other States, and wenever quite catch up before another recession hits. Because of ourhigher than average unemployment, State and local revenues toaddressSenator &mom If I may interrupt you just a moment, I am beingcalled back to that other committee and I am going to turn it overto your fine Senator--Ms. DUNN. Thank you. I appreciate it.Senator SIMON [continuing]. Who has shown an interest and aleadership in this area, also.Senator ADAMS [presiding]. Thanks, Paul.I want to welcome both of you here this morning. Ms. Dunn, Iparticularly went to welcome you as a representative of the Stateof Washington. The reason I am moving in and out is as you men-tionedAlar. I have just been in the Alar hearings and I willreturn to those later.But we are very concerned about this, and so I want to welcomeyou here today on behalf of the State of Washington and, Mr.Shinn, to welcome you. Please continue with your testimony andwe are pleased to receive it.Ms. Du: . Thank you, Senator Adams, and I also want to justbriefly mention that I really appreciate the help of Mary AnnRichardson of your staff. She has been really helpful to us in thiseffort.Senator ADAMS. Thank you, Susan.Ms. DUNN. I don't need to tell you much about WashingtonState's economy and a little bit about how this allocation formulachange might affect us, but if I could proceed.Senator ADAMS. Please do.Ms. DUNN. Any formula change which deemphasizes unemploy-ment rates or relative number of disadvantaged in the population
21
210
will steadily erode our JTPA funding base over time, even assum-ing the hold harmless provision as proposed.
Locally, the same will occur, making it a rural versus urbancounty disadvantagement issue. Ultimately, it seems to me there isa danger that Congressional support for JTPA Title II programswould wane, as only the urban counties with large numbers of eco-nomically disadvantaged will receive sufficient funding. to operatecost effective programs.
Another consideration at this time is validity of the economic dis-advantagement data. I understand it is about ten years old. Manyof the areas of Washington State that would be: affected by this for-mula change beginning July 1 of this year appear to have signifi-cantly higher populations of economically disadvantaged than in1982 when JTPA passed.
As you know, our State's rural economy has shifted due to suchfactors as the mechanization of the agricultural and timber indus-tries, resulting in greater production with fewer workers.
In my written testimony, I have touched on other areas that theassociation supports and other areas of concern to our association.But at this time, I thank you for the opportunity to testify and Iam pleased to respond to any questions.
Thank you.[The prepared statement of Ms. Dunn follows:]
211
STATEMENT OF
SUSAN DUNN
STATE JTPA LIAISON ORGANIZATION
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
HEARING ON JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1989
2
212
MARCH 16. 1989
Good morning my name is Susan Dunn. I am Assis ant Commissioner of the
Washington State Employment Security Department. I am pleased to have this
opportunity to present testimony on behalf the State JTPA Liaison
Organization. Our group is provided staff support through the National
Governors' Association, and is made up of the state JTPA administrators from
all 55 states and territories. The testimony that I will be presenting today
will, to a large degree, reflect the consensus positions of the group which
meets to discuss issues of common concern, to share best practices, and to
learn of other issues that may affect the JTPA system.
Let ma begin by saying that we are pleased that the bill before us
addresses many of the critical areas that we believe can improve the fat n
without disturbing the basic concepts of JTPA. Congress adopted four
underlying policy principles vhcs. JTPA was passed. Those principles are 1)
involvement of the private sector in the design and administration of training
programs, 2) program design that recognizes the true principles of federalism,
3) provision of true training, not income maintenance programs, and 4)
insistence on ?erformance. It is our strong belief that such fundamental
precept!! as the present federal, state and local partnerships, the
Policy-wing and managerial role of the Governors, and the flexibility for
states and local service delivery areas to develop responses that are unique
to geographic, social and economic needs are absolutely essential to the
continued success of JTPA. We believe that these legislative principles
should continue to guide policy and that all proposed amendments should be
consistent with their direction.
2 6.
213
We welcome, however, the opportunity to participate in your efforts toimprove the efficiency
and effectiveness of the JTPA system. We recognize theimportant "ole job training plays in the struggle to retain our nation'scompetitive position in the global economy. The JTPA system stands ready tocontinue to provide vitally
needed training for America.
As we reviewed the history of JTPA, ve found a high degree ofresponsiveness to the guiding principles. First, in the area of privatesector involvement, through Private Industry Councils and State Job Training
Coordinating Councils, the system has fully integrated thebusiness community
into the Areign anddeclaim-making processes of training. As importantly,
the system has been responsive to the workforce needs of busin. In
program year 1987, more than 1.3 million participantsreceived services under
Title IIA. Of the more than 760,000program terminees, 61 percent; filled
vacant jobs. The program trained workers and provided emrloyers withjob-ready vorkers.
The second principle oftrue federalism has also been realized. As state
officials vith primarymanagement and policy responsibility, ve work with
Service Delivery Areas and Private IndustryCouncils to make training relevant
to the everehansingworkplace. It is the unique relationships
between thepublic and private sectors, state and local gmvsrnmenta, policy makers,service providers,
business, labor and nonprofitsthat make the system work.
We ask that you help us refine these relationships not redefine them. It isthe current structure
of decentralized decision- making and accountability that
fosters innovation. Innovation lead, to solutions and solutions to moreproductive citizens.
2
217
214
The third- rinciple of providing training opportunities of a program of
income support has also been accomplished. The Deparment of Labor reports
that the systi* spent 74 percent of its resources on training. Eleven percent
of the resources vere used for support services, such as transportation and
child caret and fifteen percent vas used fr administration of the program.
The Act targets the economically disadvantaged and places special emphasis on
individuals that are velfare recipients, minorities, vomen and educationally
disadvantaged. Over 93 vacant of the JTPA clients are economically
disadvantaged, 41 percent Pare receiving public aesietence, 46 percent are
black, 53 percent are vomen, and 45 percent lack a high echool diploma. This
record prove: that the system vorks to serve the targeted clientele. It has
also vorked to provide true training. In 1987, 58 percent of the program
terminees participated in either classroom tminiug or onthejob training.
The average placement vage for JTPA clients vas $5.11 an hour. JTPA is
providing quality training for good jobs.
The fourth .,inciple for JTPA Las been performance. I believe that
performance is the real strength of the system. The Act established national
performance standards against which performance of local programs is judged.
Eaeh year since the JTPA system has been operational, performance has exceeded
the national standards. Law year, in fact, performance has improved. In
program year 198., the entered employment rate vas 72 pore nt, compared to the
national sfsandard of (2 percent. The program year 1987 welfare entered
employment rate VAS 62 percent and the national standard %if 51 percent. The
average place:am. vage national standard use exceeded by 20 cents an hour, for
program year 1987. JTPA has clearly succeeded in its original mission.
3
41
215
The system has performedand performed well. The record of success,
however, does not preclude the need for refinement of our priorities forservice. The economics of the 1990's are compelling justification for theconclusion that we cannot afford to let even one worker remain outside the
economic mainstream. The demographics of the year 2000 point out that many inour required workforce will
need special assistance in overcoming substantialbarriers to employment.
Analysis of job trends indicatethat it will not be
enough to simply possessa skill, workers must have the ability to learn new
jobs and new tasks, again and again. The needs of the economy today are very
different than the needs of 1983. The time is appropriate, after five yearsof experience, to
asseas the performance of the system and to fine-tune its
objectives. I would like to now addresssome of the specifics of the bill.
Targeting of Resources
It is difficult for a group such As ours, thatrepresents all states, to
take positions on formulas for distributing funds. There are inevitablywinners and losers. We do ask, however, if you do find it necessary to adjustthe formula, please retain the hold-harmless provision that minimizesdisruptive funding fluctuations.
It is nearly impossible to opert.2% effective
programs when the amount of money available changes dramatically fromyear-to-year.
Eligibility Criteria
The bill changes the eligibilitycriteria for adults by mandating that all
Title II A participantsmeet the economically disadvantaged
criteria. We are
4
2 9
216
unable to support this provision since the system has found the 10 percent
"window" for eligibility to be extremely beneficial to the program.
Eligibility should be broad enough to accomodate differences in labor market
needs and demands. There are legitimate cases where non-economically
disadvantaged persons with barriers to employment should have access to
program services. For example, highly motivated, unskilled workers whose
dead-end, low-paying jobs put them just above the income eligibility criteria
are likely candidates for JTPA training which could significantly Increase
their earning power. There is some evidence that persons who are poor by
local standards in high cost urban areas are currently excluded fro= service
due to the lack of realistic regional adjustments to the lover living
standards income criteria. Meeting the needs of individuals in these special
circumstances could be accomplished by retaining the 10 percent "window."
Even with the 10 percent allow .ce, 93 percent of the systems clients are
economically disadvantaged.
We support defining youth as 16 to 24 year-olds. This age grouping
recognizes that the services needed by some 23 and 24 year-olds can be better
provided under Title II-E than by Title II-A, Adult Program Services.
However, it may be useful to overlap services for 22-24 year olds by defining
adults ea 22 and above. We also support the provision for the 10 percent
"window" for serving non-economically youth who have other severe
disadvantages am well as the additional 5 percent window for youth with the
same impediments, if included in the plan approved by the Governor. This will
allow the states to serve the needs of a significant segment of the youth
population, and will also enhance coordination with other programs that use
educational deficiencies as the eligibility criteria.
S
217
§tate Set-Aside Funds
The State JTPA Liaisons are concerned about the possic.y unintended
effects of moving the 40 percent youth allocation out of Title IL.. Since allthe programmatic set-asides
are computed as a percentage of Title II& funding,
moving the youth money to Title IIB constitutesa forty percent reduction in
th amount of moneyavailable through the set-asides, even before legislative
adjustments are made to the percentages. For example, in Washington State oursix percent incentive set -aside amount was $2,325,427
for program year 1988.
Computing the 6 percent on the new IIA allocation, the amount would be$1,395,256. This reduction will effectively eliminate our ability to provide
any technical assistance to SDAs, offer meaningful incentive awards, or
provide any staff training. At a time When the emphasis of the program is
changing, we need additional dollars to support the program, not dramaticreductions. Therefore, we ask that you apply the set-aside percentages toball ZIA and TM amounts.
In general, the JTPA Liaisonsbelieve that the current state set-asides
are too restrictive and do not providesufficient resources for capacity
building, research and demonstration, evaluation, technology transfer andfollow -up. While all states experience the effects of the restrictions onuses of the set-asides, small
states have a particular problem with the lack
of adequate resources for administration. The JTPA Liaisons support a minimum
administrative allocation amount for all states. Without this minimum
allocation states will be unable to meet new requirements, like 6 and 9 month
participant follow-up, in addition to current responsibilities for auditing
activities, oversight, support of the State Council, and a myriad of other
6
218
administrative activities. We further ask that you allow states to use
set-aside funds for the capacity building, *training, and follow-up activities
that are needed to continue to offer quality services.
o! also :ecommend that the 2 percent older worker set-aside be eliminated
and the money be allocated to the Service Delivery Areas. The JTPA Liaisons
agree with the position taken by the SIPA U.S. DOL Advisory Group that older
individuals can best be served by mainstreaming the present state-level
program with other local programs. States could then be required to assure
that older individuals are provided equitable services by the Service Delivery
Areas as a significant segment of the population.
Other Title II-B Provisions
We fully endorse the year-round programming, the requirements for a
service strategy, and basic skills assistance for each participant. This
concept will improve the quality of services, place greater emphasis on
arsessment, as well as increase the potential for improved coordination with
tha schools and other available services. We also endorse the provision for a
locally developed formula or procedure for providing needs-based payments
necessary for youth to participate in the program.
performance Standards
We believe that the present framework for performance standards should be
maintained rather than developing separate performance standards for
hard-to-serve individuals. The present system permits States to aZjust the
7
2 4' 2
219
Secretary's performance standardsaccording to the population being served,
e.g., low level of educationalattainment, and other barriers to employment.
This mechanism providessufficient flexibility to adjust performance standards
so that it is possible toserve this clientele and still meet or exceed
Performance standards. In addition, states have the authority to establish
performance standards for"special populations" in their states, and provide
incentives based on these standards. Over tine, states have gained confidentin =mating the performance
standard system to achievenational, state, ann
local policy priorities.Retaining the present
system is, without doubt, in
the best interest of JTPA.
We consider the provisions in Title II-B for replication of successful
programs for youths to be animportant provision of the bill, but believe this
need transcends youth programs. We suggest that you expand this provision to
cover programs under both titles.
tetra -State Reallocation of Fundi
The state liaisons fullysupport the concept of reallocation of funds
since experience has awn that it is an important management tool inmaintaining adequate levels of expenditure. A special management studyconducted by HGA indicated
that in program year 1987, over half of the States
had implemented reallocation policies at that time. By the following year,
two-thirds of the states expected to have reallocation policies. However, it
8
223
220
is important that the states be provided the flexibility to determine the
amount of funds that an SDA or program operator can carry -over without
recapturing the funds for reallocation purposes as is the case in the new JTPA
Title III. Therefore, we believe that the provisions in the bill that set
carry-over limitations for Service Delivery Areas should be eliminated.
General Provisions
We are opposed to abolishing the Commission for Employment Policy. The
Commission has provided a valuable service by supporting research in a number
of areas vital to JTPA including performance standards, services for special
segments of the population, labor market information, and education. In
addition, the Commission has served as en independent forum for the
deliberation of significant JTPA policy issues. The entire employment and
training system would be ill served by abolishing the Commission.
Conclusion
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to present the JTPA Liaison's
views on your bill. We hope that our input will assist you in refining this
bill so that it will truly enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of Job
Training Partnership Act programs.
9
221
Senator ADAMS. Thank you very much, Ms. Dunn and Mr. Shinn.I do have a question for you first, Ms. Dunn, and then, Mr. Shinn, Iwill ask if you wish to comment on it, too.As 3 understand, the problem that you are presenting that youwant us to consider in the Title II portion of the program is thatStates like Washington State would be eventually losing, evenunder the hold harmless agreement, because our disadvantagedstudents and people that would be helped by the Title II programare concentrating in the urban counties and therefore our ruralcounties will be left with less and less of an allocation. Is that cor-rect?Ms. DUNN. Well, particularly in the Title II-B allocation--Senator ADAMS. Title IIB; that is what I am referring to.Ms. DUNN. As I read them, it focuses on the number of disadvan-taged students rather than the relative number. Certainly, thelarger numbers appear in more urban counties.Senator ADAMS. So you want us to be very careful that we usesome type of formula approach rather than straight numbers indoing this, is that correct?Ms. DUNN. Yes. I would like the formula to take into consider-ation both, if it can, to make sure that over time we don't have anissue where rural economically disadvantaged young people---Senator ADAMS. I have a great concern about this. This seemslike a week when the whole world is sort of settling down on us.We have the tremendous timber problem, which is a rural prob-lemmany people who are disadvantaged in the sense that theyprobably cannot obtain urban jobs.We are having to cut back in these areas and the rural countiesare decimated with a large number of disadvantaged people, but arelatively small number compared to the Seattle- Tacoma area. Wehave had the same thing occur in the Richland area with the re-duction of the nuclear facilities there, and we have had the samething occur in certain of the cherry-producing areas of the State.So we would be very interested in working with you because Sen-ator Simon and I have discussed this at some length. He has a verygood bill and a very excellent point he wants to make, but I can seethat the hold harmless is not completely protecting our rural popu-lations and our smaller towns are being decimated.Is that basically where you would like to have me focus my ef-forts on this subcommittee?
Ms. DUNN. Yes. Thank you.Senator ADAMS. Now, Mr. Shinn, I happen to know my State alittle better than yours, though I have spent quite a bit of time inyours. Wo..dd you like to make any further comments on the bill oron the testimony, or are you satisfied with the presentation youhave had a chance to make?Mr. SHINN. I think any concerns that our State would havewould be kind of like Susan's because we are a rural State, too, onthe allocation part.Senator ADAMS. I think we have to face that as we are looking atthese programs. That is why we are trying to update them. We arehaving enormous technological changes that are impacting severelyon our rural-urban relationship and we want to try to do what we
97-712 - 89 - 8
22v;
222
can to take that into account as we are moving toward the moredisadvantaged.
I alio want to state that Senator Thurmond was unable to bepresent due to scheduling conflicts. And believe me, we have them;I just left him a. Moment ago. However, he would appreciate ourentering his statement in the,record, and therefore, as Chairman, Iwill enter Senator Thurmond's statement in the record as thoughgiven in full.
[Additional material supplied for the record follows:]
223
aNational Conference of State Legislatures
444 North Cap tot Street. N W. President Samuel D. Nunez. Jr.Suite 500 Senate President Pro TemWashington. D C. 20001 Louisiana202/624-5400FAYJ2024371069
ST^TEHENT OF
THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES
REGARDING
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTSTO THE JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT
MARCH 16, 1989
weir Office 105017th Street Sue 2100 Denver. Colorado 80265 30a623.7800
22,'
Executive DirectorWilliam T, Pound
224
As official NCSL policy states, the social and economic forces that result inskilled worker shortages and disproportionately high levels of poverty andunemployment among certain segments of American society are national in scopeand must be addressed by federal policy, legislation, and funding inpartnership with the states.
More specifically, such policy, legislation, and funding should focus on threecritical areas of concern: (1) the shortage of skilled labor; (2)disproportionately high unemployment among disadvantaged populations,especially youth; and (3) displaced workers.
Regarding the first two points:
1. The shortage of skilled labor projected for the late 1980's and 1990'swill have a negative impact upon American industrial growth and, unlessaddressed, may weaken the national social and economic structure. Thechanging nature of work and the workplace demands a true state-federal effortaimed at a systematic commitment to the preparation of the workforce. Such ajoint commitment should be accomplished with the full coordination of theemployment and training and education systems.
2. The employment and training needs of the working and unemployedpoor--especially youth--must be addressed through special funds and programs.Exceedingly high unemployvent among the nation's economically disadvantagedand minority youth, and the unique problems they face, must be attacked bycoordinated national, state, and local efforts utilizing the resources of boththe public and private sectors. Such a joint effort should be highlycoordinative and innovatiie with career placement the end goal for theindividual.
NCSL believes that a year-round approach in public policy to youth joblessnessis generally lacking. While the JTPA should be a major vehicle forschool-to-work transition, evidence would indicate that few of those most inneed currently are b)ing served by JTPA. Therefore, NCSL applauds yourefforts to correct this problem by amending the JTPA to encourage a morecomprehensive approach to youth employment and training.
We would specifically recommend that a comprehensive youth program include:
1. An expansion of resources at the secondary school level for basiceducation and remediation to reverse patterns of functional illiteracy andreduce dropout rates. Youth served should be those least likely to becomeemployed without assistance.
2, Institutionalized school-to-work transition services at the secondaryand post-secondary levels, to include counseling, career exploration andplanning, job search assistance, and other services that will facilitate entryinto the labor market and instill the importance of further educatio3 andtraining, especially for the non-college bound.
225
3. After-school job opportunities and full-time summer employment,coupled with remediation, should be provided for economically disadvantagedyoung people who are in high school or who agree to return to an educationalprogram that leads to a diploma or equivilancy certificate. Educationalperformance and school attendance should be a condition of participation andwould be strictly-monitored.
Special attention should be given tocoordination with local Private Industry
Councils to provide work and trainingopportunities in the private sector to enhance the value and credibility ofthe experience.
4. Creation of work and serviceopportunities for 14- to 18-year olds who
have completed or are completing high school or an equivalency program andwant to devote some time to community
or conservation service to develop andtest their skills, and explore new interests. At least 50 percent of theparticipants should be economically disadvantaged.
5. Long-term follow-up services to assure that the transition iscomplete, including incentives for promotions or substantial gains in incomefor target youth.
NCSL urges a true state-federalpartnership to combat this serious national
need so that future generationsof youth can become fully employed and
productive mmbers of society. To accomplish such a partnership, it isimportant that:
a. Planning for employment and training programs be a coordinated stateand local activity;
b. Federal legislation should not be written in a way that vests programresponsibility in a specific branch of
state government, but that the neutralword "State" be used to avoid conflicts
with individual state procedures,practices, and laws;
c. Federal legislation and regulationshould establish that state and
local administrative structures for federal employment and training programsshall be pursuant to state law, such as (1) which agencies shall administerthe programs, (2) within federal
guidelines, how planning and evaluation shallbe conducted and how program data shall be collected and disseminated,and (3)what implementing, appropriating,
and oversight authority shall be reiained bythe state legislature;
d. Federal legislation should be written in a way that builds upon stateand local initiative and innovation;
e. The private sector, especially smallbusiness and industry, must be
involved in all aspects of the employment and training process, from planningto assessment;
f. Allowances, stipends, program activities, and support services shouldbe neither mandated nor prohibited,
but allowed flexibility in keeping withprogram design and the needs of individual clients;
226
g. Federal and state action should facilitate the coordination of alleducation, skill training, and employment services, both pvbiic and private.Such coordination should include mutual advisory board memberships,
coordinated planning, and exchange of information on a timely basis. Thefederal government should not encourage the proliferation of needless advisorymechanisms.
h. Employment and training programs should be assessed annually with theoversight assistance of the state legislatures to determine the extent towhich they are meeting the goals of coordinated national and state policiesand program objectives.
-The National Conference of State legislatures, the representative organization
of the nation's state legislators and their staffs, is pleased to be a part ofthis process to improve the delivery of services under Title II of JTPA. Welook forward to working with the committee further as it progresses in itswork on this legislation.
230
227
Senator ADAMS. I thank you both very much for being here, andthe committee will stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:11 a.m., the subco Imittee was adjourned.)
JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT YOUTHEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENTS OF 1989
THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 1989
U.S. SENATE,SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY,
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES,Los Angeles, CA.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room350, Session Room, Board of Public Works, 200 N. Spring St., LosAngeles, CA, Senator Paul Simon (chairman ef the subcommittee)presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SIMONMr. SIMON. Vie Subcommittee hearing will come to order.We are having a hearing on a bill that I have introduced, S. 543,to amend the Job Training Partnership Act.What we are trying to do is to see if we can target the economi-
cally disadvantaged more effectively. At this time, let me acknowl-edge the leadership of a dedicated person from this area, Congress-man Gus Hawkins who has been a pioneer in this whole field. Con-gressman Gus Hawkins will also be introducing some legislation onthe House side very shortly.
The Advisory Committee set up by the Secretary of Labor hasjust issued a report following along the same lines as the bill Ihave introduced.The difficulty of the present programand it is a pod pro-amis that we had a problem with what is called "creaming."
We are lookin;; for thoseproblem
iesults, and frankly what ,ve haveto do is target more effectively and that is what we want to t "ke alook at today.The National Council of La Raw has issued a report regardingJTPA and Hispanics called "Falling through the cracks: PispanicUnderrepresentation in the JTPA."We have to do better, I think we can do better.I note the presence of the President of the City Council here, andbefore I take any other witnessie, let me call on the President ofthe City Council. We are honored to have you here, Mr. Ferraro.Mr. FERRARO. Senator, let me say that we are honored to hay.:
you here in our City Council Chamber, and I just wanted to comeby and personally welcome you to the City Hall, and thank you forcoming here. TIT---e are a lot of problems in the City of Los Angelesas I am sure you know there are lot of problems all over thecountry, but we appreciate you coming here to Los Angeles. You
(229)
4.3
230
will be hearing from one of my outstanding colleaguesRichardAlatorrein a few minutes, and we just appreciateyou being here,and I just wanted to personally welcome you.
I haven't seen you since last year with Mike Rcos and RichardKatz if you remember.
Mr. SIMON. You give my greetings to your neighbor Mike Roos;he is a longtime friend.
Mr. FERRARO. I sure will.Mr. SIMON. I have to say, you are probably the tallest City Coun-
cil President in the United States.Mr. FERRARO. I am of Sicilian origin. My mother and father were
Sicilians and people say that I am the world's biggest Sicilian. So, Idon't know if that is good or bad.
I am not a member of the Mafia I might add.Mr. SIMON. We thank you, very, very much, and I appreciate
your hospitality and your courtesy in stopping by.Mr. FERRARO. Thank you, Senator.Mr. SIMON. Our first witness will be a member of the City Coun-
cil here who Chairs the Police, Fire and Public Safety Committeeof the City of Los Angeles, Councilman Richard Alatorre.
We are very, very happy to have you here.
STATEMENT OF COUNCILMAN RICHARD ALATORRE, CHAIRMAN,POLICE, FIRE, AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE, CITY OF LOSANGELES
Mr. ALATORRE. Maybe you are aware, and I believe that Council-man Farrell should be here momentarily, who happens to be theChairman of the Grants, Housing and Community DevelopmentCommittee. Jointly we submitted a report to you for the record,and I don't want to read the entire lengthy document, but what Iwould like to do is just basically give you a overview of how theCity of Los Angeles views the JTPA program.
I want to just take this opportunity obviously, to thank you forcoming to the City of Los Angeles.
My name for the record is Councilman Richard Alatorre, and Irepresent the 14th Council District on the eastern part of Los An-geles.
I have a strong and continuing interest in providing alternativesto young people who see no possibility for their lives except gangmembership, drugs and resignation.
The statistics are compelling here in the City of Los Angeles. Thedropout rate is around 40 percent; one out of every five youngadults is illiterate. More than 300,000 students, over half of theSchool District come from economically disadvantaged back-grounds. 145,000 city school students have limited English skillsand speak over 120 different languages in Los Angeles. Of the35,000 to 50,000 homeless in our city, at least 10-15,000 are youths.At least 70,000 young people are gang members. 20,000 girlsbecome teen mothers each year.
I firmly believe that we can reach these young people and theycan learn that their lives can in fact make a difference, but theycannot simply be placed on a straight job training track, they need
2 3°
231
remedial education, counseling, family assistance, role model pro-grams, gang and drug diversion programs and other assistance.We spent $9.10 million for youth job training this year in addi-tion to the summer youth employment. I am not sure whether themoney that we are spending on a yearly basis has been spent well,or that JTPA is working. The present rules are almost for partici-pating agencies to recruit only employable people, since agenciesare mostly paid for their successes. It takes considerably moreeffort and more effort and time to work with a person who has nohistory, or has no solid job history and experience, few reading orwriting skills. What incentives are given these agencies to seek outthese kids and develop programs for them?A local government such as ours needs flexibility to design pro-grams so that they can meet both the national and local agenda.We have some experience in what works best here such as workexperience when combined with classroom training and basic skills,value clarifications and pre-employment skills. Jobs are retainedlonger when job training takes place over a longer period of time,in short or more absorbable learning sessions. Incentives and sti-pends are important to continued participation in these programs.Integrated programs where more than one course or skill are pre-sented concurrently and certainly more effective than courses pre-sented by themselves.
As a member of the Grants Committee, I supported the Commu-nity Services Center program which will provide comprehensive jobtraining, and support services to disadvantaged youths at five ofthe City's housing projects. This program was already designedunder the present JTPA guidelines and will be expensive to imple-ment. This is the kind of program that I believe JTPA was de-signed to fund. One that targets youths who might not otherwisedevelop the background it skills to become employable and produc-tive citizens.As Chairman of the Police, Fire and Public Safety Committee, Ihave authored a Youth At-Risk Advocacy Program. The staff ischarged with developing policy, coordinating and developing a com-prehensive community plan, and funding additional programs fordivine categories of At-Risk use. This program is housed in thesame department which administers the JTPA program and is ex-pected to work in concert with JTPA.So in closing, I appreciate the interest in local concerns, and Itrust that there will be flexibility and a partnership between localand federal entities in designing the final JTPA legislation, whileon the one hand the weight and the rigidity in the federal man-dates that creates certainly difficulties for local entities. There cer-tainly is no doubt that a program like the JTPA is needed. But Ithink that we have to allow for the flexibility by local entities todeal with the priorities as we view them here at the municipallevel.
It seems to me that when we are talking about trying to reachout and trying to work with youth that have difficulty in not onlyschool, but more importantly usually at a certain age have hadrun-ins with the law, that local entities have got to be given theflexibility that is necessary. Guidelines certainly are important, butthose guidelines have to provide for the flexibility for local entities
41/2:
232
like the City of Los Angeles to design innovative programs that ul-timately are going to meet the needs of the young people as well asthe adults that this program was targeted to meet.
With that I will be more than glad to answer any questions.Mr. SIMON. Thank you.Mr. ALATORRE. Let me introduce you to two individuals that
irobably best exemplify success of the JTPA program.First, let me introduce to you Arley Hermosillo, a JTPA partici-
pant for the Chicana Service Center, Incorporated.Secondly, Mr. Vernon Randolph, a JTPA participant in the
UCLA High-Risk Youth Project, the Duke Ellington ContinuationHigh School.
These individuals will make their presentations and when it isall said and done with, I think that their input is extremely impor-tant in the framing of any changes in the JTPA program.
Mr. &mom Thank you, very, very much.
STATEMENT OF ARLEY HERMOSILLO, A JTPA PARTICIPANT FORTHE CHICANA SERVICE CENTER, INC
MS. HERMOSILLO. Good morning.My name is Arley Hermosillo and I am here from the JTPA Chi-
cana Services.I went through the agency from Chicana, a center of JTPA in
San Fernando Valley, referred me to Chicana Services and I filledout an application. I was looking for a job. I am a widow and I havetwo children. I was out of work, I didn't want to submit to welfare,I wanted to work and I told my children that they could either seeme, that I wanted to go ahead with my life and not be dependenton anybody else and show an acceptance to my kids because I wantthem to go to college, to see that I am working for them and theycan go Jn to school I don't want them to be in gangs or drugs oranything like that. I dropped out of high school which I regret verymuch. I was a teenager who didn't know what I was doing, but nowthat I am adult, I want to go ahead with my life.
I know that the program helps and it has helped me very much.Now I am a receptionist at L & M Collection Agency and I amdoing better, and I have a car now. This has helped me a lot and Ithink it would help a lot of other people and teenagers to go ahead,to show them that there is someone there to help them, to goahead with their life. I am really sure that this helps a lot and Ihope it helps other people, and I am here to show what it has done;I want to :nove ahead. I am just thankful for all that.
Thank you very much.Mr. Simor. If I may just ask you a couple questions, what would
you like to be doing 5 years from now?Ms. HERMOSILLO. Maybe I would like to be managing an office or
owning a business; I want to move ahead. I plan to go back toschool to show my children that a single mother doesn't need wel-fare, you know. I want to be an example for them too. They helpme a lot.
Mr. SIMON. As I was reading your story, your husband was killedin a tragic automobile accident.
Ms. HERMOSILLO. Yes.
2 o
233
Mr. SIMON. We don't mean to be picking on you, but we under-stand the legislation through individuals. The reality is you are aschool drop out as you mentioned. We have through our presentprogram zeroed in primarily on giving jobs to people who are highschool graduatesunfortunately when you compare the JTPA pro-gram with the predecessor, the CETA programthe opportunityyou got as a high school drop out has meant what to you?Ms. HERMOSILLO. I feel like if this agency wasn't there, that Iwould probably turn to welfare and just stay there, you know, Ineeded the training, help supportI am moving upand I think ifit wasn't there I'd probably be a single welfare mother, and I don'twant that, so they helped me.Mr. SIMON. We thank you, very, very much, and we thank youalso for coming down. It is not easy to get in front of a microphoneand get in front of a member of the City Council and United StatesSenator here, but what we are talking about here is not just yourfuture, but we are talking about your two children.Ms. HERMOSILLO. And other people too. Other single mothers.Like I am here so they can help other people too, like how theyhelped me and for my children too.Mr. SIMON. I thank you, very, very much.Vernon Randolph?
STATEMENT OF VERNON RANDOLPH, GRADUATE, DUKEELLINGTON CONTINUATION HIGH SCHOOL AND JTPA PROGRAM
Mr. RANDOLPH. My name is Vernon Randolph. I am a graduatefrom Duke Ellington High School.During that time at Duke Ellington High School, I was a part ofthe JTPA program. I must say that the program has helped me outa lot because it has given me interest in a field. Beforehand I wasdoing camera work for American Cable Systems in Inglewood, but Iwasn't really interested in it.The JTPA program has also helped me out school-wise, credit-wise, by comparing work to education such as math and English.Mr. SIMON. You had problems in school?Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, sir,s did. In regular high school wasn't in-terested in going to class, I was pretty much ditching class andskipping. To me everything was pretty much the same, learningthe same old math and history qnd English, so I wasn't interested,so I just skipped class a lot.Mr. SIMON. And you were part of a High Risk Youth Project.That is your legislation, Councilman, that you introduced?Mr. ALATORRE. That's correct.Mr. SIMON. And how did you get picked for this particular UCLAproject?Mr. RANDOLPH. We weren't exactly picked; we were given achoice as to whether or not we wanted to participate in the UCLAproject. So I decided to take it. I heard all this stuff about theproject and how they could get jobs and how it would help us edu-cational-wise, so I decided why not give it a try. When I went toDuke Ellington, my grades had went up. I was very interested Inthe class, especially because the teachers helped and took an inter-est in me.
236
234
Mr. SIMON. And what has this meant for your future?Do you feel better about your future and your hopes as a result
of this?Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, sir. In fact I was thinking about being a pro-
ducer instead of just being an ordinary camera man; a producer'sassistant.
Mr. SIMON. That's great. We thank you, very, very much, forbeing here.
Councilman, can you describe your High Risk Youth Project?Mr. ALATORRE. Let me just explain what the program does, but
more importantly, and I think Mr. Porter, who will be speaking,can talk at length as to the youth programs that we are establish-ing in five housing projects, really gearing the program to what Ibelieve this program is supposed to be all about.
The City of Los Angeles like many other cities, spends a lot ofmoney on programs for youths, but unfortunately we many timeshave no policies, we have no direction, we kind of flounder and wehave a hodge-podge as opposed to what I consider to be a very seri-ous problem as it relates to High-Risk Youth.
We have developed an advoc :Icy program which basically the re-sponsibility is to develop a policy and also grants that are funded,that are geared toward youth has got to be consistent with thatpolicy, and any new programs have got to work toward the variousdifferences in geographic areas. You know, even in the City of LosAngeles, and when I talk about flexibility, I am not just talkingabout flexibility for a municipality, but also even here in the Cityof Los Angeles, approaches in geographic area of the City, maywork with that area, but do not necessarily guarantee success inother areas, and let me cite you as example.
The gang problem in say South Central Los Angeles which is ba-sically motivated on process, is totally different than approachesare totally different than the gang problem in the District that Ihappen to represent which is basically territorial in nature. Andcertainly I hope that it doesn't come to the day where you questionthe process; basically dictates gang membership and dictates how aarea is going to be controlled and the like. But the program basi-cally recognizes those geographic differences and the various pro-grams that we are attempting to establish, would also recognizethose geographic differen zes bemuse I really firmly believe that wehave got to begin to take chances became just looking at statisticshere in the City of Los Angeles, I mean it's frightening. Just in myDistrict alone, as an example, the reading levels of kids, you know,are three or four grades below, and those are kids that are graduat-ing. We are not even taking into account those that have alreadydropped out, were probably depending on schools anywhere from40-50-60 percent of the kids drop out before they even graduate.They drop out somewhere between the 10th grade and the 12thgrade. Ms. Hermosillo as an example, made it to the 11th grade.There are many kids that don't even make it to the 10th grade Buteven for those that do make it to the 10th grade, in some highschools as many as 60 percent of them, will never see graduation.And our responsibility has to be to try and move them so that theycan become productive members of the society, because I am of theopinion that school is geared for the academic achievement. It is
2 :2)1'1*) I
235
not geared for those -that maybe are not bound for college. Yes, wehave to strive for that, but we also have to make education as wellas these programs, geared for those individuals that are maybe notcollege bound, can become functional in this society and given anopportunity. These are two individuals that are probably examplesof thousands of kids that have been given the opportunity throughthe JTPA program, but there are so many more because of the ri-gidity of the guidelines that it is difficult for local entities to de-velop a program that meets our needs, because the guidelines aresomewhat rigid, and I think there has to be flexibility for entities.Mr. SIMON. You mentioned one other area. I also happen to beon both the Education Subcommittee and on the Budget Commit-tee. We devote two percent of our federal budget to education ifyou exclude the school lunch program. I don't know of anothernation, rich or poor, that devotes that small a percentage of its na-tional budget.Mr. ALATORRE. It's outrageous; I mean it's absolutely outrageous.I know that you have been in the forefront of very progressivemeasures that rekte to really channeling our resources in a saneand constructive L.anner, but something has to be done.We are going to ultimately live or die by our abilities to developa foundation and to educate our children. As rich as this nation is,as great as this country is, the fact that we spend, you know, up totwo percent of our budget on education, is deplorable. AbsolutelydeploraF le.
Mr. &mom On the JTPA Program specifically, do you have thefeeling that we are not targeting very effectively?Mr. ALATC:IRE. No. I mean I think that the program is fine forbasically kids, that, yes, maybe he dropped out of school, or kidsthat are not interested in stayingit is basictilly reaching, youknow, all the kids need it. Like we have some schools that aredoing in gangs and they are doing it in gangs because there is noother option. I mean they are not happy in school. Many times it isdifficult to even get somebody interested in taking a chance withthese kids because more than likely they have had contact with thepike, some of them have been incarcerated. Some of them, most ofthem, some of them have been abused kids. They are obviouslydrop outs, but we have bright kids out there that if given the op-portunity and our local management is, given the flexibility, wecould begin to meet the needs of these kids, but I think that theway that these guidelines are structured, it's kind of like we go forsheer suggestions. And it kind of works to the disadvantage ofthose kids that are marginal and probably need to have as much orgreater than others.
Mr. &mom I thank you for your leadership.I have been handed a note that the gentleman who has joinedthe table, heads the UCLA program.Let me thank you for your testimony, and I know you have otherthings to do, Councilman, and I appreciate your being here andalso your leadership.Mr. ALATORRE. Thank you, Senator.
238
236
STATEMENT OF ROB SCHUMER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF FIELDSTUDIES, UCLA
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Simon. My name is Rob Schu-mer. I am the Associate Director of field studies, UCLA.
If you would, I would like to give you just a little background.Mr. SIMON. You will have to make it brief here.Mr. SCHUMER. The intent of the program was to have UCLA
work collaboratively with the L.A. Unified to the end to do some ofthe things that Mr. Alatorre talks about, and that is to begin toreform the school system so that we can prevent a lot of these dropouts and other potential JTPA participants who would eventuallyget into the system.
The goals of the program is to try to infuse the tutors who workwith the continuation school and to get people like Vernon whodidn't seem to have much direction, who had histories of failureand truancy, to begin to think about the operations that we talkedabout, to aspire to a career.
Mr. SIMON. Do you work with the JTPA program quite a bit?Mr. SCHUMER. Yes.Mr. SIMON. And it is your impression that we are not targeting
as effectively as we should?Mr. SCHUMER. I would suggest that we are not targeting as effec-
tively as we should. One of the reasons that we chose to work withthe contio;: .tion school is that all of the students who were at thecontinuation school, have gotten there because of truancy and be-havioral problems and have already had problems in the system, sothe continuation school serves in time as the next step before stu-dents intend to drop out of school. So we are serving that popula-tion, but I think that it would be very helpful for ty to get theSchool Districtit is part of our problem in getting the Sohool Dis-trict to take a serious look at students who are not achieving, andto begin to change their system to allow students to look at theircareers and aspirations and build an educational system for thesupport that UCLA provides to do the job that needs to be dohe.
Mr. SIMON. We thank you.Let me particularl thank Ms. Hermosillo and Mr. Randolph. It
takes special courage on the part of both of you to come here, andwe really appreciate it. We wish you the very best, and by comingand speaking out here, you are helping to make opportunities forothers. We appreciate it.
Tell those two children they should be pr'ud of their mother.Ms. HERMOSILLO. Thank you very much.Mr. SIMON. Thank you, very, very much.Our next panel is composed of Mr. Steve Porter, the Assistant
General Manager of Community Development Department, City ofLos Angeles; and Mr. Russell M. Frandsen, the Vice-Chair of theLos Angeles County Private Industry Council.
Let me say to these witnesses and the succeeding witnesses, ifyou wish to enter a formal statement in the record, we will do that;if you wish to summarize what you have to say, that might be help-ful for us here.
Mr. Porter, we will start with you.
237
'STATEMENT OF STEVE PORTER, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, CITY OF LOS AN-GELES
Mr. PORTER. 'Yes. I' am Steve Porter, Assistant General Managerof the 'CitY Community Development Department. I have been inthe City of "Los Angeles for 15 years working in employment train-ing programs, and in fact established and directed the employmentand training program froin inception to its conclusion, so I amspeaking with some foundation in terms of legislative history, and Iwould like to applaud you and' the individuals you work with in theU. S. Senate for suggesting what we consider vary fine amend-rrients to the Job Training Partnership Act legislation.Our major concern focuses on 14 areas, and we submitted alerigthy.Written report to your staff which has been made availablethis morning. Essentially apart froinand I would like to highlightseven of the 14, but apart from that, our central concern is withthe apProPriation process, in that since the inception of CETA tothe mid-70's, we haVe moved froin a billion employment andtraining program under CETA, to one' approaching the $3 billiOnlevel. So for us at the local -level as a service delivery area, we areconfronted with diminishing resources and increased needs.I would like to quickly go through the seven areas if I might.Firstly, we support your proposal to create separate titles foryouth and adult. Back in the early 1970's administratively, we seg-regated youth and adult programs within our department becauseit made sense that developing youth programs separate and apartfrom adult programs, related to the specific needs of each targetgroup. So we applsud that change.In terms of the age grouping we would recommend that the agethat you have established for 16 to 24, be reduced to include 14year olds-14 to 24. And the reason we want to do that is manykids of a younger age within the 14 and 16 year age group, aredropping out of school at an early age and need assistance as dothe older youth.In addition to that, I am not sure how the legislation is going tobe structured, but in terms of segmenting youth from adults, welike the flexibility provided in the adjustments so that individualscategorized in the youth group, be it 16 to 24 or 14 to 24, be allowedto enter the adult program if appropriate.And secondly, the SDA strongly supports the development of thedual performance criteria, one set for youth and a second foradults.Again ,going back to what Councilman Alatorre said, we need aseparate set of performance standards so that we can really servethe hard to serve economically disadvantaged. Those are the chron-ic problems and multiple barriers in employment. And we really,historically, since the inception of CETA, had difficulty with theperformance standards because of Private Industry Council insistthat we meet +:ie five performance criteria to enable us to receivethe bonus money from the state. So if you are going to segregatethe performance standards and allow some sort of flexibility of 10percent window or whatever for the most at risk, it will certainly
2 4j
238
help us in dealing with groups like the homeless, at-risk youthgang members and those groups.
The third point is on stipends. Without stipends or learning rein-forcements for youth, we can't serve the most disadvantaged. Poorkids can't enter programs without some kindof income flow.
Fourthly, we understand the need to limit carry over to perhaps10 or 15 percent, but I think you need to look at not only the ap-propriation, but the approval and accounting for that. So someonethat goes through a 16 or 17 month program, or something beyond12 months, can be carried forward without the SDA or the Admin-istrator being faulted in terms of that process.
Fifthly, in terms of the formula change while it positively im-pacts on the City of Los Angeles, we think it might be better towait until the 1990 census data is available, and that a data basethat is understood and accepted by all can be implemented unifor-mally in terms of that formula.
And, sixth, in terms of the set-asides for different groups, olderworkers and others, we very much support that, but in terms ofstate set-asides, it would give us greater flexibility if that moneywas .passed directly down to the local level, because when the stateoverlay policies are established, it precludes our flexibility to ad-minister the program in Los Angeles.
And the last point is number seven. In terms of your preferencefor enhancing linkages such as those of UCLA with local education-al agencies, we definitely, support that, and in fact we submittedsome language that would broaden those provisions whereby wewould be able to use instructors that are state certified from localunified school districts to work on-site at community based organi-zations.
That basically concludes our remarks.Mr. SIMON. I thank you very much.We will enter your full statement in the record.[The prepared statement of Mr. Porter follows:]
239
TESTIMONY OF STEVEN M. PORTER
Assistant General ManagerCommunity Development Department
City of Los AngelesMarch 30. 1989
Good Morning ladies and gentlemen. I'vly name is Steven M. Porter I am theAssistant General Manager of the Community Development Department. Cityof Los Angeles. I have managed employment and training programs for taepast twenty years.
I wish to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important pieceof legislation. My staff and I have carefully reviewed the proposedlegislation and applaud your efforts to improve upon what is already a veryfine system. The overall sixty percent reduction in funding for employmentand training programs since the inception of JTPA . however, has been aconstant frustration. We support your current efforts to increase fundingfor employment and training programs.
Our comments on the proposed changes to the legisi...!on are as follows:
I. THE CREATION OF SEPARATE TITLES FOR ADULT AND YOUTHPARTICIPANTS
The SDA supports the proposal to create separate Titles for youth an.,adults. This change would allow for better coordination of all youthservices.
We also recommend that youth be consistently defined as ages 14through 24. Flexibility should be incorporated to serve youth inadult programs when it is appropriate.
II. SEPARATE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The SDA strongly supports the development of one set of performancestandards for hard-to-serve individuals and a separate set ofperformance standards for all other individuals receiving assistanceunder this act. Hard-to-serve should be defined at the local level.
2464
240
III. STIPENDS AND LEARNING REINFORCEMENT PAYMENTS
Stipends and learning reinforcement payments are critical if JTPA is toprovide long term training for hard-to-serve individuals and shouldbe included within the proposed legislation.
IV. 10S.CARRYOVER LIMIT
While the SDA understands the need to better controlunderexpenditures. it does not support the proposed 10% limit onLarryover. The definition of carryover should be expanded to includetali contractual obligations and accruals,
V FORMULA CHANGE TO IMPROVE THE TARGETING OF FUNDS
The SDA supports the effort to improve the targeting of funds toeconomically disadvantaged individuals. Until an accurate nationaldatabase becomes available, hos% ever. the SDA is concerned that asufficiently accurate formula cannot be developed,
The SDA supports reserving 10% of Title 11. .unds for experimentalprograms to provide services to hard -to -serve individuals andexempting these programs from perform_ ce standards. It issuggested that SDAs have the option of incr...sing this amount to amaximum of 25%.
VI. STATE LEVEL SET-ASIDES
The SDA supports the concept of setting-aside funds for specialprograms. such as State Education Coordination Grants 18%i, IncentiveGrants t6%1. and Older Workers Program (3%1 In order to be moreeffective, it is recommended that these set-asides be passed directlyto SDAs and controlled at the local level. For example. the currentpolicy in California sets-aside 50% of the 8% funds exclusively for theState's Welfare Reform Program GAIR
241
VII. LINKAGES WITH LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEA's)
The SDA strongly supports this legislative mandate. The SDArecommends that funding allocations to LEA s include set-asides forhiring basic skills instructors to work on-site at community basedorganizations tCBO's). Such teachers would be employed by the LEAand (laced on-loan to the SDA to provide basic skills remediation toJTPA participants. The City currently operates such a system utilizingpre-GAIN 8% savings.
CLOSING REMARKS
Again. Senator, I commend you in your efforts to strengthen employmentand training assistance programs and to improve the targeting of services toeconomically disadvantaged individuals. We are encouraged by yourconcern at tne national level to place a stronger emphasis on education andbasic skills in employment and training programs.
We hope that the comments presented by the City of Los Ange..4 willinfluence you to place even more emphasis on control and flexibility ofemployment and training programs at the :al level. This briefpresentation is supported by eleven pages of writt q testimony which youhave before you.
244
242
Mr. SIMON. Mr. Frandsen?
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL M. FRANDSEN, VICE-CHAIR, LOSANGELES COUNTY PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL
Mr. FRANDSEN. Senator Simon, I am Russell Frandsen, ViceChairman of the Los Angeles County Private Industry Council. Iam one of the business representatives on the PIC.
I have specific comments relating to some portions of your Bill.The Los Angeles County contains significant numbers of hard to
serve youth who would be aided by the amendments that you haveproposed. We anticipate that the funding for Los Angeles Countywould be increased by 10.8 percent if the funding formulas are im-plemented.
With respect to the composition of the Private Industry Council,the Los Angeles Private Industry Council has a very effective orga-nization, it was designated as the outstanding PIC in Californialast year. It was nominated by Governor Deukmejian -to the WhiteHouse for a merit award, and I understand that we were awardedthe award of second in the country in terms of outstanding PrivateIndustry Council.
We are structured as a non-profit corporation but the PIC mem-bers may have the same protections and privileges and authorityas board members in private non-profit corporations. Currently wehave 20 membersfunded positionswith whom 12 are businessmen and women. They represent both large companies and smallcompanies. They have a great variety of management skills; mostof them have bottom line responsibilities.
As a result, they bring to the PIC an entrepreneurial outlook awillingness to look at new approaches, to abandon those that donot work, and to insist above all on effective performance by thePrivate Industry Council staff, and by the agency that deal withthe PIC.
Since I believe that the success of the Los Angeles County PH-I
vate Industry Council is due in large measure to the input of busi-ness representative., and its executive director, I do not believe therole of business representeives should be diminished on the PIC.
As I will outline in a moment, I believe we have had very suc-cessful relationship with community based organizations, and wecertainly have their input. They are at every meeting that wehave.
At the present time I would urge you not to set rigid quota par-ticipation by various groups.
Now, if you wanted a different or fresh perspective on the PIC,you mig .t consider mandating participants to serve a one or twoyear term on the PIC. This might be supported by a stipend so thatthey would be able to afford both the time and the transportationto attend the PIC meetings.
With respect to job training, the Los Angeles County Private In-dustry Council, together with the Los Angeles Economic RoundTable, conducted a survey to determine which of our local indus-tries would provide the best opportunities for JTPA participants tofind rewarding, satisfying and long term employment within thoseindustries. We targeted 37 industries and 32 trades which we
24'j
243
deemed to be growth 'ndustries within our various communities.We are now using tin various trades with our service providersto target the training that when participants complete the pro-gram, they will have , excellent opportunity for an excelle it jobin a growth industry.I have attached as you will note, graphics that indicate wherethejobs are.We are also concerned about the long term success of our train-ing program. We have commissioned a study to find out how effec-tive the training is in the long run.Attached to my testimony is a graphic outlining the success. At13 weeks after termination, we had 81 percent of participants stillemployed and after nine and a half months, we had 75 :Aercent stillemployed. 42 percent were still with the original placement em-ployer. The others generally moved up to high paying and betterjobs. But we considered the fact that they are no longer with theoriginal employer, basically a positive development.With respect to hard to serve youth, we have already i'creasedthe focus of hard to serve youth. We term them at-risk youth andwe require that 35 percent of the resources we expend on at-riskyouth to meet two of the following criteria: A school dropout, acriminal offender,:a sang member or gang affiliation, handicapped,teenage parent or 'Low academic achievement.We have also undertaken some very creative' programs to helpthose most in need. One is what we call Project New Start.Project New Start will (serve initially up to 20 women by provid-ing 24 hours care in a structured residential environment with ex-tensive training and support serviles th't will enablfi each partici-pant to become stable and independent.The program will operate on a thine month cycle with a sixmonth cap on participation.
When the PIC approached other organizations in the state in-cluding the County Department of Children Services, the PublicSocial Services, Health, Probation, the Sheriff, the State Depart-ment of Rehabilitation, two school districts, and the Arch Dioceseof Los Angeles and two foundations, we received enthusiastic sup-port. Are have been able to leverage the PIC on $5,000 per partici-pant with $6,000 from other organizations.We have great hope that this will prove very effective in thelives of the participants.As you can see from my testimony, lie Los Angeles County PIChas been very supportive of innovative approaches and bold steps.We support the
supportiveChance" Youth Opportunities ChallengeGrant.
May I also suggest that innovation be encouraged at the locallevel in every respect so that we can assess the needs on an individ-ual locality basis and come up with those programs which are mostessential in serving their needs.I also have some other suggestions for you. The PIC basically at-tempts to treat a single problem, a manifestation of much deepersocial problems in ()lir community. The JTPA program while it canhelp to elevate certain symptoms, cannot fault the basic issues andproblems._Guncilman Alatorre described some of the big problemswhich will require solutions beyond JTPA, and I believe they will
246
244
require solution that require new approaches and new innovationsthat have not yet been tried at the federal level.
So, I urge you to reevaluate the current approaches at the feder-al level to allow the problems to be solved by individuals in thisstate and federal level and private sector approaches.
Thank you.[The prepared statement of Mr. Frandsen (with attachments)
follow:]
9 VI
245
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
TESTIMONY OF RUSSELL M. FRANDSEN,Vice Chairman,
Los Angeles County Private Industry Council
March 30. 1989
RMF912:95020PIC
24 E;
97-712 - 89 - 9
246
Senator Simon and other me.:xerc of the Subcommittee on Employment
and Productivity:
I am Russell M. Frandsen, Vice Chairman of the Los
Angeles County Private Industry Council. I was appointed by
Supervisor Pete Schabarum of the Los Angeles"County Fifth Dis-
trict. I am a business representative on the Private Industry
Council. In the private sector, I am partner of the national law
firm McKeni,., Conner & Cuneo. I am pleased to present testimony
before your Subcommittee today. I have reviewed the proposed
changes to the job training partnership act as set forth in Sen-
ate Bill 543. I have specific comments relating to various pro-
visions of the Bill.
FUNDING FORMULA IMPLICATIONS FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Los Angeles County contains significant numbers of hard
to serve youth wao would be aided by the amendments to the allo-
cation formulas proposed in the Bill. We anticipate that funding
for Los Angeles County would be increased by 16.8%.
COMPOSTITON OF PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNSEL
The Los Angeles Private Industry Council has formulated
a successful and effective organization and was designated as the
outstanding private industry council in California last year.
Governor Deukmejian has nominated the Los Angeles Private
-2-
2 z
247
Industry Council to the White House as one of the outstanding
private industry councils in the Country.
Our Private Industry Council is structured as a
non-profit corporation with the members of the Private Industry
Council serving as the board of directors. This arrangement
allows the PIC members toserve effectively with many of the same
rights, powers, and protections which thrir counterparts in ' ,e
private sector enjoy when serving on boa- of directors. The
Private Industry Council has its own independent staff headed by
our very able Daniel Flaming as Executive Director. The staff
reports directly to the Private Industry Council and is responsi-
ble only to the Private Industry Council.
The Private Industry Council currently consists of 20
positions, of whom 12 are business men and women from the private
sector. The businesses represented include small businesses,
attorneys, and representatives of large corporations. These
business representatives bring a variety of much needed manage-
ment skills and perspectives to the Private Industry Council.
Our Chairman is Rod Hanks, Vice President of Human Resources for
Lockheed Corporation. The Chairman of our Budget and Contract
Pricing Committee is Richard Balsmeyer, a small businessman in
the computer business, who has a keen eye for budgets, expendi-
tures, and determining that the PIC gets the most value for everydollar spent. The Chairman of our Operations and Oversight
-3-
250
248
Committee is Arthur J. Hirshberg, a small businessman who is
involved with the footwear manufacturing industry. He is very
perceptive in analyzing the operations of the Private Industry
Council and its contractors and in spotting incipient problems
and finding solutions before they develop into large problems.
Likewise, the other business members bring much needed business
skills and perspective to the Private Industry Council from the
very competitive Los Angeles business community. These business
representatives are volunteers who donate their time. For most
of them, the time devoted to the Private Industry Council is time
taken away from their business activities and has a direct bottom
line impact on their own financial affairs. These business rep-
resentatives have no vested intereczt to protect and none of them
are direct grant recipients or contrac recipients of funds
administered by the Fzi ate Industry Council.
The entrepreneurial outlook which the business repre-
sentatives bring to the Private Industry Council fosters creativ-
ity, new approaches, a willingness to reevaluate old approaches,
and insistence on effective performance by the Private Industry
Council staff and by tne contractors with the Private Industry
Council.
Of course the non-business representatives also bring
very valuable contributions to the Private Industry Council,
particularly a knowledge of how governmental agencies operate and
-4-
249
specialized knowledge of governmental programs intended to fostereducation and employment.
Since I believe that the success of the Los Angeles
County Private Industry Council is due in large measure to the
vision, perspective, and management skill_ of the business repre-sentatives and the PIC's Executive Director, I do not believethat the role of the business representatives should be dimin-ished. Accordingly, I believe it would be a mistake to includein any legislation formulae mandating that a certain percentage
of members of private industry councils be from this group orthat group. As I will outline in a moment, our Los Angeles
County PIC has been very successful in reaching out to all
community based organizations, and state and local governmentalentities to assure a successful PIC program.
In fact, the businessrepresentatives have demanded it.
At the present time, the composition of the Los Angeles CountyPrivate Industry Council would not conform with the quotas setforth 'n the proposed legislation. I urge you to delete the
quotas from the Naposed legislation.
JTPA PARTICIPANTS AS PIC MEMBERS
A fresh perspective to private industry councils could
be achieved by asking a JTPA participant or former JTPA partici-pant to sit on the private industry councils. This could be
-5-
2 5 2
250
accomplished if legislation enabled a stipend to be paid, where
appropriate, to a JTPA participant who would not otherwise be
able to participate on a private industry council. The partici
pant could be selected by the business representations on the
PIC.
TARGETED JOB TRAINING
The Los Angeles County Private Industry Council,
together with the Los Angeles Economic Round ',able, commissioned
a study of growth industries in Los Angeles County which would
provide the best opportunities for JTPA participants to find
rewarding, satisfying, long term employment. The survey targeted
37 industries in Los Angeles County which expect sign:ficeint
growth and employment opportunities. Within the 37 industries,
the survey targeted 32 different trades required by the 37 growth
industries. The Private Industry Council is now targeting these
32 trades in which to provide training to JTPA participants.
Attachment 1 to my testimony is a table describing the
37 growth industries and the 32 trades within that industry.
The study is a result of the cooperation between the
Private Industry Council and its business representatives and the
local business community. It is a valuable resource to us.
-6-
261 3
251
MEASURING THE SUCCESS OF JTPA TRAINING PROGRAMS
The Los Angeles County Private Industry Council has
been very concerned that the training programs it administers are
effective in the long term. The Private Industry Council commis-
sioned a study to determine the effectiveness of our training
programs. Attachment 2 t* my testimony is a graphic which illus-
trates the percentage of participant:: employed at the time of
termination of the JTP training program, at a point in time
thirteen weeks after termination of the training program, and at
the time of interview which is approximately 91 months after
termination of the training program.
The graphic shows the long term placement outcomes for
adult participants trained in 1986-87. After thirteen weeks, 81%
were still employed. 71% were still employed with the original
placement employer. After approximately 9.6 months, at the time
of the interview, 75% were still employed. 42% were still
employed with the original placement employer.
These overall figures are an average of the outcomes of
different subgroups. After 9.6 months, 84% of those people who
had not been welfare recipients were still employed. In con-
trast, only 58% of those who had been welfare recipients were
still employed. This is a gap of 26%. If minority female recip-
ients are singled out, the gap grows even larger. The employment
-7-
252
rate of Hispanic women who had been welfare recipients was only
42%.
The predominant pattern among female minority welfare
recipients who did not keep their jobs was that they quit for
voluntary personal reasons and did not seek reemployment. The
explanation for this is that they were unable to deal with the
demands of their employers and at the same time meet the child
care and health needs of their families. The solution to this
proble,i which our Private Industry Council is implementing is to
provide much more substantial post placement supportive services
for JTPA participants wit, were welfare recipients.
HARD TO SERVE YOUTH
We support the aims of Senate Bill 543 to concentrate
the available resources on those most in need. In the past two
years, our Private Industry Counc4.1 has sought to allocate a
greater percentage of funds to the hard to serve population. We
have increased the number of "at-risk youth" to be served up to
35%. "At-risk youth" means any youth which meet two out of the
six following criteria: (a) School dropout; (b) criminal
offender; (c) gang member or gang affiliation; (d) handicapped;
(e) teenage parent; and (f) low academic ac:lievement.
We have also attempted to increase the number of hard
to serve adults who particii. .e in the JTPA training programs.
-8-
253
Attachment 3 to my testimony contains graphics which
portray the percentage of JTPA participants in the 78% program,
both adult enrollments and youth enrollments, from various
subgrouping of the Los Angeles County population.
PROJECT NEW START
Our Private Industry Council has attempted to help some
of these most in need through an innovative program combining the
resources of a number of state and private agencies. One program
is entitled "Project New Start".
Women who are inmates of County custodial facilities
are too often "repeaters", women who return to jail over and over
again. A profile of these women reveals a pattern of criminal-
ity, drug abuse, inability to properly care for their children,
and a history of dependency on public assistance that frequently
assures their recidivism.
Beyond the tragedy of lost human potential caused by
the failure of these women to break such patterns, their failure
to become self sufficient and responsible members of this County
is costly in terms of public resources spent on welfare, health
and protective services as well as the justice system. In
response to this need, the Los Angeles County Private Industry
Council has designed Project New Start, a residential program
which will provide vocational and basic skills training as well
-9-
2 5 6
254
as a comprehensive package of support services for highly moti-
vated women recently released from county detention.
Project New Start will serve up to twenty women at a
time by providing 24 hour care in a structured residential envi-
ronment with intensive training and support services that enable
each participant to stabilize and become independent. The pro-
gram will operate on a three-month cycle with a six-month cap on
participation. Though the children of these women would not live
with them during their tenure in this program, parenting classes
and, when necessary, professional assistance would be provided to
help participants become successful mothers for their children
once they graduate from Project New Start.
Additional program activities would include pre-employ-
ment skills development, basic remediation, vocational training,
job placement, and group as well as individual counseling on an
as needed basis. Project New Start would also provide transi-
tional child care, housing, and transportation assistance to help
participants successfully exit the program and establish produc-
tive lives.
When the PIC approached other organizations with its
,.itention to start this program, the response was enthusiastic.
The County Department of Children Services, Public Social Ser-
vices, Health, Probation, and the S .rtif, the State Department
of Rehabilitation, two school districts, the Catholic Arch
-10-
255
Diocese and two foundations have joined with the PIC to implement
Project New Start. This netwz.44 of cooperation would not have
emerged if the PIC had not put forward a clear concept for meet-
ing an important need. But with this cooperation, the $5,000
that the PIC will spend on each person has been matched by over
$6,000 from other organizations.
We have a sincere hope that this program will enable
the participants to effect a lasting change in their lives.
I wish to acknowledge the enthusiasm, vision, and
direction which our Executive Director, Dan Flaming, has given to
this program.
CHALLENGE GRANT
As you can see from my testimony, the Los Angeles
County Private Industry Council has been very supportive of inno-
vative approaches and bold steps. Accordingly, I support the
"Fair Chance" Youth Opportunities Challenge Grant set forth in
Proposed Senate Bill 543.
May I also suggest that innovation be encouraged in all
aspet:s of the program at the local level so that federal funds
may truly be effe.tively used in assisting those in need.
25.8
256
LONG TERM PREVENTION
As a business representative from the private sector, I
fully understand the need for change and innovation to meet
changing times and the need to abandon policies and procedures
which, if at one time were successful, no longer work. I believe
in the dynamism and the' efficiency of the private sector. In the
private sector in a free market, success or failure depends upon
choices made by individual consumers. I believe that in the vast
majority of cases, individuals can make better decisions for
themselves than government agencies can.
Therefore I urge you to evaluate all federal social
legislation in terms that will maximize individual choice and
will most closely allow the free market to play a role prevent-
inj the vexing problems which JTPA has been enacted to cope with.
In particular, I urge you rethink federal programs which have had
the effect of undermining family life, encouraging teenage moth-
erhood, and out of wedlock births, and foster.ng dependency in
enclaves of public housing.
There are many stimulatinc and innovative ideas perco-
lating from numerous foundations and think tanks acigsb the coun-
try, and even in the halls of Congress. I sincerely wish you
good luck In this endeavor.
Thank you very much.
-12-
269
257
Attat.nent 1
Los Angeles County Private Industry Council
Los Angeles Cconomic Roundtable
TARGET CRORTa IROUCTRIR$ Wirral
26J
SIC Indust-y NameSites1987
TARGET GROWTH INDUSTRIES
Emp. 5 Erap. AnnualIn Sites to Silos Vow Jobs
450 0500 87 Emp 84-87
Table 1
84-87 Ave. Mn.06-87 84-87 1987 Lac Ore Wages
Chao X Chg. toe Die Choosy, 1987PRINTING
2711 Newspapers 146 7.7% 69.4% 17,869 679 16.1% 12.9% 0.98 0.08 225.2092721 Periodicals 204 45.4% 16.271 5,099 417 3471 32.5% 1.06 0.13 236.3832731 Book Publishing 85 296% A% 1,923 158 143% 32.8% 0.58 0.10 219,6032741 Miscellaneous Ftbilshing 256 45 9,1 .0% 3.259 60 11.471 5.8% 107 -0.33 226.4852751 Cournerctel Printing. Letterpress 468 52.8% 9.671 7,621 -206 4.9% -7.5% 1.15 -0.14 223.2392752 Commercial Printing. Lithographic 1.151 49.7% 14.9% 15.418 401 6.1% 8.5% 1.18 -0.10 $27.6112761 Manifold Businsss Forms 19 12.1% .051 1.693 70 52% 14.2% 088 0.12 $26.6742782 (Bankbooks, Loseleaf Binders 37 13.1% 41.5% 3,179 113 22.8% 11 9% 1.81 0.05 191 8 Industry Group Total 2,366 - - 56,061 1.692 10.18 ItailPRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES
3324 Steel Investment Foundries 7 .2% 45.7% 1,609 98 8.9% 22.5% 3.01 0.15 $19,1463361 Aluminum Foundries (Castings) 90 24.8% 21.5% 4,510 -21 1.6% -I.4% 2.18 006 223.3193362 Brass. Bronze. Copper Foundries 34 42.1% .0% 1.332 94 24.4% 27.0% 2.44 0.63 217.6083369 Nonferrous Foundries, NEC 29 24 2% OR 1,473 64 8 7% 149% 1.99 0.22 20 7964 industry Group Total 160 - - 8.924 235 7.02 8.651 EIDFFABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS
3432 Plumbing Fixture Fittings & Trim 29 9.071 61.9% 3,246 181 -3.8% 20.1% 3.36 0.84 219,7973442 Metal Doors. Sash. Fremes, Mold. 93 21.7% 27.3% 3,888 34 14AX 2.7% 1.04 -0.03 222.0703151 Screw Mahn Products 107 42.3% .0% 2,851 78 7 4% 8.9% 1.60 0.16 22 5341 3 Industry Group Total 229 - - 9,985 292 5.95 9.65)MACHINERY
X37 Industrial Trucks & Tractors 26 21.1% .0% 1.531 125 14.5% 32.6% 1.52 0.48 220.5763;45 Machine Tool Accessories & Mxxi. 85 53.1% .071 1,815 57 2.9% 10.4% 086 0.15 221.5393151 Food Products Machlnery 41 32.3% OR 1 7 47 1.3% 8.5% 1.21 0.06 229.8893 Industry Group Total 152 - 5,153 230 5.5X 15.45 1.224.181
2/3/89 - 102.3 AM Lore Angeles Economic RoundtablePage 1
SIC Industry Rama
TARGET GROWTH INDUSTR:ES Table 1Z Emu. Z Egnp, Annual 84-87 Ave. Ann.Silas la Sites In Sltss New Jobs 86-87 84-87 1987 Lea Chao Wages1987 450 ,500 '87 Emp 84-87 2 Macs 2 Char. Loc I. Change 1987
ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC EOLOP.3612 Trarafermers 34 8.58 483% 3.616 193 528 19.15 1.83 0.34 8228013652 Phonograph Retards 8, Recorded No 139 1938 53.8% 4.811 334 26.75 2638 5.94 0.74 832.7523562 Radio & TV Comnselcation ECdP. 141 1.6* mos 90.639 352 2.48 525 4.45 -0.25 8392223674 5amlecnSuctors & Related Drdcas 68 15.18 21.9% 8.573 1.453 14 85 103.55 0.82 0.42 837.9293679 Electronic Canocnetts NEC 351 22.72 12.78 14.307 -260 14.38 -5 25 1.41 0.06 22 735 Industry Cram Tata 733 - 121,946 2,073 5.42 8.62
AEROSPACE3721 Aircraft 22 .02 99.05 94.118 1.553 2.05 525 E 0.37 839.3813728 Aircraft Equipmtat. NEC 478 13.05 53.35 32.117 1568 1.78 25.18 4... -0.41 832.2573761 Gilead tilssiles & as Vehicles 7 .05 99.1% 15 918 2.696 5 45 10338 2.55 0.87 832,1903 Industry ereup Total 507 142.153 5.817 2.65 15.6*1 I $36,966 I
fit'SIttESS SERVICES5065 Electronic Parts &Ends WO 888 43.05 5.05 17,356 747 235 14.88 2.99 0.38 831,2947321 Ccosantr Croat ReprUrg Agencies 211 68h* 0.0% 4.734 502 23.1% 46.75 1.16 0.13 820.2027331 Dirmt Hall Ad. SMICe3 136 22.85 12.65 5.426 -121 1435 -635 1,53 -0.41 820.0607372 Computar Programa* 714 32.15 28.15 11.092 302 138 8.95 1.19 -0.45 840.9147374 Data PrC41531,111 Services 319 20.65 40.48 14267 1,786 38 01 60.15 121 0.31 825.7267379 Computer Services. WC 597 45.55 0.0* 6232 488 -4.05 82.48 1.19 0.07 840.4473;2 tlgmt.. Comulling5ICACCH 4,309 54.55 935 36.515 1.908 - 205 22.98 158 -0.11 832.4337397 Cornmerdal TesUnslabs. 126 48.45 0 0% 2,999 247 12 AR 32 13% 1.62 021 31I 3 Ind=try Group TALI: 7,300 - - 98,621 5,859 5.8* 25.45)
AUTOMOTIVE tlIEDIANICAL SERVICES7538 General Autccnothi Rapair Shops 2,068 87.65 0.05 8,761 95 -638 3 43 120 -0.09 819.4957539 Auto Repair Shops. KC 954 8225 0.0% 5,434 145 5.4* 8.75 121 -0.06 818.0765511 Motor Valeta Dealers, New & Used 0 567 23 OX 3.38 32.627 1,529 6.38 16 43 0.91 -0.01 $31,386I 3 Industry Genus T tai 3 589 - 46 822 1 770 3.6* 12.8*I I $27,616 I
2/3/89 - 1023 An Los Angeles Economic Roundtable Page 2
262
M C Industry Kama
TARGET GRCAYTH INDUSTRIESTable 1
X bap. 2 Erna. Annual 84-87 Ave. Ann.Silos ht Spas la SILas Km Jobs 56-87 84-87 1987 Lac G. Wages1937 (50 a500 87 frog 84-87 X Choy 2 Chg. Lot Oro Change 1987
137 TARGET INDUSTRIES TOTAL 15,036 - 489,665 17 968 5.02 14.421
ILA. COUNTY EISPLOYLIENT TOTAL 211.454 -
2/3/89 -- 1023 An
3 515 300 aczoo 2.8X 8.0711
1::: t- 4-0
1 1233.248 I
I $24,612 I
Lou Angeles Ecanosnlr RoundtablePage 3
TABLE 1TARGET GROWTH irIAISTr.iES
Expienetorg Notes
All the calculations and analyses are based upon employment data provided by the Employment and Dote Research Division of the EmploymentDevelopment Department. Note: L.A.County-vide employment date excludes agriculture end government employment.
The Los Angeles County Target Grovf N :Mu:stria were selected f -am a comprehensive list of epprmdmately 800 4-digit SIGs. Acombination of quantitative analyse, -ampanied by detsiled Industry I nveetigations reeulted in the final list.
SIC - Standrd Industrial Classification cods, used by Departments of Letor,Osmnierca and State EDD to distinguish incuitries by theirproducts or services. The 4-digit epecifleation is the most fine-grained enduseful for purposes of tracking end targeting. Thirty -seven Sin were selected for targeting.
INDUSTRY GROUP - The 37 target 4-digit Industries have been grouped into eight 2 -digit clusters in order to provide an overview ofsimilar industries: e.g., the printing end publishing industry is SIC 27. Note: in few cuts, industries from different 2-digitfamilies have been grouped together because of the focus on overlapping occupations.
SITES 1987 - Number of Employment Sites. An edequate number, related to the overall employmentof the industry, vu deemea necessaryto Insure numerous and divers placement opportunities. The largest number of sitesare in the Business Services industries. Theleast, 152, are In the selected machinery Industries. In sum, target growth Industries ere located in over 15,000 sites..
% EMP. IN SITES <50 - Proportion of the total employment in sites which have less than 50 employees. A high percentage indicates theprominence of email boinessee 111 the industry. Auto repair shops have the largest proportion of their employment in smell sites.
% EMP. IN CITES >500 - Proportion of the total employment in sites which have mare that 500 employees. A high percentage indicates thepredominance of large firms ir tee indusi7y. Aerospace end the electronic communications (SIC 3662) industries have employmentoverwhelming concentrated In larger sites.
67 EMP - Average employment for the year 1987. Industries with less than 1 000 emplowee were excluded beams of the limitedinformation available and the obstacles to dealing with a small Industry. Aerospace and Electrical and ElectronicEquipment accountfor over half Gft he targeted growth industry employment.
ANNUAL NEW JO BS 84-87 - Net new Jobe reported between 1984 ind 1987, divided by three, in order to gouge the average annual not newjobs. The absolute number of new jobs should be substenti. to provide sufficient pleestnent opportunities. In a few excepttons, enindustry with negative change was Included if it diepleyvI distlect growth in the most recent leer gag,it displayed similaroccupational staffing pellet ne to related industries that were growing strongly, TM largest Portbra of rev Jobe were coming fromaerospace end Dulness services- -about 5,800 annually each.
2/3/69 -- 5.46 PM Los (Ingots% £c000spic Roundleble No 4
264
TABLE 1TARGET i;kOWTH INDUSTRIES
Explanatory Notts (Continued)
86-87 %CHM - Percentage employment growth from 1986 to 1987. Should be 51gnifIcant1y positive, but In a few instances en industrywith negotive change vas Included if tt displayed overall strong growth (84-87) end it MO eyed similar occupational staffi ngpatterns to ranted Industries that were growing strongly. The fastest growing industry group In 86-87 woo printing. The slowestgroup was armor-co. Overall, the target industries grew et 5.0% in..mparison with the county-wide avenge of 2.8%.
84-87 % CHG - Annualized percent employment growth horn 1984-87. Should be significantly positive. In a few exceptions, en industrywith ne ystiva change vv. included ',lit displayed distinct growth in the inset recent year eng.it dieplteed similar omupational staffingpatterns to related Industries that were growing strongly. Businassserviceshadthefestestgrowthrateoverthethreeyearperiod. with primary metals and electrical en! electronics the alowsst, et 8,6%- -still falter than the LA. County employment total.
li`17 LOC QUO - This Location Quotient 13 a measure of the relettve employment concentration of en industry In Los Angeles es compared tothe nation es s whole. A location quotient of 1.00 mare that the employment in LA. i in the same przportten 33 11 is in the nation.An 0.50 means 1113 one-half the proportion. A 2.00 means the industry employment13 twice as concentreted in LA. Higher locationquotients ere indications of Industry strength Ina region. With one exception, e location quotient of less then 1.00 yes made up forby a trend toward Increased location quotient. The aircraft industry 13 the most strongly concentrated ndustry in the list.
84-87 LOC QUO CHANGE - The net change from 1984 to 19871n location quotient of en industry's employment indicates changes Inconcentratien. A positive change Is preferred, but negative changes could be compensated for by en el reedy strong location quotienten! other indications of growth. SIC 3432, Plumbing Fixtures en! 3761, Guided Missiles, both el reedy strongly situated industriesIn Los Angeles, had thegreateet Increases In location quotient.
AYE ANN. WAGES 1987 - All the wave paid by the firms In en industry in 1987, dividedby the everege annual employment In 1987. Yerylow eve rage yew Industries were excluded from consideration unless some counterbalancingfactor, such as occupational staffingpattern, could be taken into account. The lowest everege wages era In the traditional 11.331C manufacturing industries: primarymetals and fabricated motel products: about $21,500 The higtest wages ere In eeroepece: nearly $37,000 In comperimn with thegrowth 1 Ft:Sultry average of $33,000 and the coent tpride average of nearly 525,000.
2/3/39 -- 5:46 PM Los fingeles Economic RoundtablePogo 5
SIC INDUSTRY NAME
GROWTH INDUSTRY COMMUNITY CONCENTRATIONS
COMMUNITIES
Table 2
PRINTING2711 Newspapers Long Beech Downtown Ventluys Torrance West Covina2721 Perfodkals Wilshire Center Hollywood Downtown West tos Angeles Brentwood2731 Bock Publishing Wert. Wilshire Center West Los Angeles Westchester Central East2741 Miscall:mous Publishing Beverly Hills Long Beach Hollywood Canoga Perk Santa Monica2751 Commercial Printing. Letterpress Boyle Heights South Certr,1 Downtown Van Nuys East Los Angeles2752 Commercial Printing. Lithographic Alhernbra Gateway Glendale South il'entral Westlaks2761 Matifold Business Forms Commerce Industry Downtown Pico Rivera Santa Fe Springs2782 Btiabcoks, Loseleef Binders Commerce Industry Downtown Chatsworth Torrance
PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES3324 Steal Investment Found-les Southeast 1A Torrance Whittler Gordon* Industry3361 Aluminum Foundries (Castings) Compton Industry North Hollywood Gateway West Compton END3362 Brass. Bronze. Copper Foundries3369 Nonferrous Foundries. NEC
AzusaCarson
lbsntington ParkIndustry
Central EastWilmington
TorranceChatsworth
West ComptonSanta Fe Springs
C7sCa,2
FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS3432 Plumbing Fixture Fittings & Trim3442 Metal Doors. Sash. Frames, Mold.
Garden,Carson
PacoimaIndustry
Los Angeles-PalmsNortheast L.A.
PomonaSouth Central
VernonMonterey Park3451 Screw Mains Products Azusa Burbank Gateway Peramount Santa Fe Springs
MACHINERY3537 Industrial Trucks & tractors Carson Downey El Segundo South Central South El Monte3545 Mali** Tool Access . & Min. Commerce DOwDey Glendale Paramount Torrance3551 Food Products Machinery Covina South Central Venice South El Monte Willowbrook
2/3/89 1256 PM Los Angeles Economic Roundtable
266PeCl
gROWTH INDUSTRY conrcarry CONCENTRATIONS
SIC INDUSTRY NAME COMMUNITIES
Table 2
ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC EQUIP.3612 Transformers Correnerce Culver City Chatsworth West Los Angeles Monterey Park3652 RilcoograPh Records 84 Recorded Tape Bo: -back Cameros Wilshire Center Hollywood West Hollywood3662 Radio & TV CommunicaUto Equip. El Segundo Hawthorne Chatsworth Westchester Plco Rivera3674 Semiconductors &Related Devices Southeast L.A. Hollywood Sylmar Chatsworth Torrance3679 Electronic Components. NEC Covina South Central Chatsworth Rosemead Santa Monica
AEROSPACE3721 Aircroft Burbank Downey El Segundo Long Beech Palmdale3726 AlrcrsilEquipment. NEC Lrbank Carson El Segundo Sun Valley Reseda3761 Guided Missiles 84 Space Vehicles Burbank Pomona Monrovia Torrance
BUSINESS SERVICES5965 Electronic Ports & Equip (wh) Compton Et Monte Chatsworth Santa Monica Tor; ante7372 Computer Programming Burbank El Segundo Canoga Park Venice Santa Monica7374 Dela Processing Services El Segundo Long Beach L.A. WasUake Downtown Encino7379 Computer Services. NEC Culver City Wilshire Center Chatsworth LA -Palms Santa Monica7392 fluent.. Consulting Services Beverly Hills Long Segall Wilshire+ Cantor Downtown North Hollywone739? Commercial Testing Lairs. Commerce Long Beach Cenoga Park Santa Fe Springs South Gate
AUTOMOTIVE MECHANICAL SERVICES7535 General Automotive Repair Stops Glands!. Wilshlre Center VanNuys Woodland Hills Santa Fe Springs7531 Auto Repair Shops. NEC Glendale Inglewood South Central North Hollywood Montebello5511 Motor Vehicle Dealers. New 6 Us/4 Downey Glendale Van Nuys Santa Monks WhitUer
2/3/89 - -1256 P11
n -, ;., 1.4 si e
Los Ang ales Economic Roundtable Page 2
TABLE. 2GROWTH INDUSTRY COMMUNITY CONCENTRATIONS
Explanatory Notes
All the calculations end analyses are based upon emplovnent data provided by the Employment ono Data Research Division of the Employmenttevolopment Department.
The community concentration of Los Ancele. *Aunty Target Growth Industries was determined on the basis of the Industriel-CommercialEmployment (ICE) Ella which provides geographically detailed industry andemployment information for all sites in Los Angeles County.
SIC - Standard I nduitrial Classification code, used by Deptrtments oltebor, Commerce and State EDD t. distinguish industries by theirproducts or services. The 4-digit specification 13 the most fine-grained and useful for purposes of tracking end targeting. Four -digit Industries have been clustered Into 2-kit groupings to provide an overeiew similar Industries: a g., ttrc adrift ng Industry13 SIC 27. Note: in few cases, industries from different 2-digit families have been groped together because of the focus onoverlapping occupations.
COMMUNITIES - The ICE data has been geographically clustered into 192 communities: all the cities (with the City of Los AngeIes subdividedinto 35 community planning areas) and all the unincorporated cornmuniiies of LO3 Angeles County.
This listing of Growth Industry Coma: ity Concentration identifies tie areas In which major employment clusters for each SIC are located,
CT1
2/3/89 -- 4.09 PM Los fingeles EconunIc Roundtable Pace 3
268
TARGET GROWTH OCCUPATIONOES
nRIKTING INDUSTRIESCODE CCCUPATIOUAL TITLE 2711 2721 2731 2741 2751 2752 2761 278225108 COMPUTER PROGRAMMER AIDES53508- BILL AND ACCOUNT COLLECTORS55311 1 MISTS--WORD PRCCEJSING EQII.,Main560115f 0 i 7
BOOKKEEPING, ACCOUNTING CLERKSCOMPUTER OPS--EX PERIPHERAL EgDATA ENTRY KEYERS--Di COMPOSIte
58008 PROD PLANNING EXPEOITINGCLER58028 TRAFFIC SHIPPING RECEIVING CLKS83002 PRECISION INSPECT, TEST, GRADERS83005 PRODUCTION INSPECT; TEST,GRACIEFt8511 9 MACHINERY MAINT MECHANICS, NEC 131853C2 AUTOMOTIVE mr,HANicaIVI111-11 DATA PROCESSIP. Egg? REPAIR:RS89111 PRECISION GRINvERS AHD RELATED'91117 MACH TOOL CUTTING OPS- -METAL P91502 NUMERICAL MACH ISOL OPS--ilat i91565 COMB MACH TOOL SETTERS--MET P9150891702
COMB MACH TOOL OPS-- METAL, PLA.WELDING MACH SETTEt5 SET-UP OF
91 :05 WELDING MACH OPERATORS AND TEllb FM:DERV riAL:VMERS, SET-UP OP 73 78 183 560 103
42545PRINTING PRES.) MACHINE OPS;TENE 746 137 576 970BINDERY MACHINE OPERATORS
4313 262 133 23292997 MACHINE SETTERS &SET-UP OPS N:- 34 6293102 lic...RAFT ASSEMBLERS- - PRECISION
IIIIELE;TROtItCH EALIP ASSEMBLERS-ELECTRICAL EQUIP ASSEMBLERS- - P
9 :9793902
PRECISION 43SEMBLERS--METAL NMACHINE ASSEMBLERS
93905 ELECTRICAL ELECTRONIC ASSEML,E193914 WELDERS AND CUTTERS98102 MECHANIC AND REPAIRER HELPERS NM
11(01111KOZNEORIMIZIMOU11 Ili REM32 Number or Occupations1987 Occ. Emp. In Target Sits 950S987 Ost, es St of Grimath Sits 5.4%
78 34 137 1,197 1,792 133 3971.5% 1 8% 4.2% 15.7% 11.6% 7 9% 12.5%1987 Tote Ems,. - Growth S1fs 17,669 5,099 1,923 3,21:9 7,621 15,418 1,693 3,179
2/2/89 -- 445 PM
Table 3
Las Angeles Economic Roundtable Page i
C)
TARGET.GROWT 3 OCCUPATIONS TaSle 3DESPRIMARY hirTAL INDUSTRIES FAB METAL PRODUCTS MACHINERYCODE OCCUPATIONAL TITLE 3324 33t. 33.2 3369 3432 3442 3451 3537 3545 355125108 COIIPUIER PROGRAMMER A'DES
53508 BiLL AHD ACCOUNT COLLECluRS55311 TiPISTS--WORD PROCESSING EfillIP55338balt 1
BOOKKEEPING, ACCOUNTING CLERKSCOMPUTER OPS- -Di PERIPHERAL EQ
56017 DATA EICRY KEY ERS- - e< COMPOSINt58008 PROD PLANNING, FXPEDITINGCLER58028 TRAFFIC, SHIPPING RECEIY114 CLKS83002 PRECISION INSPECT, TEST &DOERS
168151309
83005 PRODUCTION INSPECT TEST GRADER85119 MACHINERY MAI NT MECHANICS NEC
16985302 AUTOMOruE MECHANICS85705 DATA PROur:559iG EQ4.11P REPAIRERS
58 27 15709111 PRECISION GRINDERS AND RELATED
1117 MACH TOOL CUTTING OPS--METAL P 192 '73 170 10091502 NUMERICAL MACH TOOL OPS--MET F91505 COMB MACH TOOL SETTERS - -MET, P1 29 22 3491 r08 COMB MACH TOOL OPS- - METAL PLATi_ Al L 29 53 112 3591702 WELDING MACH SETTERS. SET-UP Or
176 3957-
91705 WELDING MACH OPERATORS AND TEN 35 4592525 BINDERY MACH SETTERS, SET-UP Or92543 PRINT f4 PRESS MACHINE OPS TENE92546 BINDERY MACHINE OPERATORS92997 MACHINE SETTERS & SET -UP OPS N( 7393102 AIRCRAFT ASSEMBLERS -- PRECISION93111 ELECTROMECH E UIP.ASSEMBLERS- -93114 ELECTRICAL EQUIP ASSEMBLERS-493197 PRECISION ASSEMBLERSMETAL N93902 MAC"c. ASSEMBLERS
8897390593914
ELEC. :.L, ELECTRONIC ASSEMBLEWELDERS AND CUTTERS
26098102 MECHANIC AND REPAIRER HELPERS32 Number of Occupations IMMO
1987 C'',c. Emu. In Target SICe 731987 Dec. 03 % of Growth SIGs 4.5%
418 011111011111110111103111MBIEGIIIIK114 ...9 685 264 304 306 2964212
j 1 7%1,807
9.3% 3.6% 2.0% 21 1% 6 8%3 810
10.7% 19.9%1,537
16 3%1,815
1987 Total Emp. - Growth Me 1,609 4,510 1,332 1,473 3,246 Zig3 1
2/2/89 -- 4:45 PM Los Angeles Economic Roundtable
270
Pep 2
TARGET GROWTH OCCUPATIONS Table 3OES
ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONICS AEROSPACECODE OCCUPATIONAL TITLE 3612 3652 3662 3674 3679 3721 3728 376125108 COMPUTER PREGRAMMER AIDES 117 54 21553508 BILL AND ACCOUNT CrUCTORS55311 TYPISTS--WORD PROCESSING 580 46755338 BOOKKEEPING ACCOUNTING CLERKS 81656011 COMPUTER OPS--EX PERIPHERAL EQ 616 177 14156017 DATA ENTRY KEYERS- -EX COMPOSlie 308 26158008 PROD, PIANNIFS, EXPEDITING CLEW' 2,266
290173 2,556 1 147
37645658028 TRAFFIC SHIPPING RECEIVING CLKS
83002 PRECISION INSPECT TEST GRADERS 3.100 219 380628
1.2131,353401
1,240676186
42183005 PRODUCTION INSPECT, TEST, GRADERMACHINERY MAI NT MECHANICS. NEC
51773
4218511985302 AUTOMOTIVE MECHANICS85705 DATA PROCESSING EQUIP REPAIRERS89111 PRECISION GRINDERS AND RELATED 21 439 34791117 MACH TOOL CUTTING °PSMETAL.? 63 289 56891502 NUMERICAL MACH TOOL OPS- -MET, 7, 50 118 140 532
561,037267
4591505 COMB MACH TOOL SETTERSMET PI 7891508 COMB MACH TOOL OPS- -METAL, PLA!,__27
39 3737
87161
91702 WELDING MACH SETTERS, SET-UP OF91705 WELDING MACH OPERATORS AND TEN 63 56 3597.525 BINDERY MACH SETTERS, SET -UP OP92543 PRINTING PRESS MACH! NE OPSJENC92546 BINDERY MACHINEOPERATORS92997 MACHINE SETTERS & SET-UP OPS N 252 8493102 AIRCRAFT ASSEMBIARSPRECISION 2 986 1 03493111 ELECTROMECH EQUIP ASSEMBLERS-- 852 283 91293114 ELECTRICAL EQUIP ASSEMBLERSPI 346
PRECISION ASSEMBLERSMETAL N2,792 I 329 616
1,997369180
9319793902 MACHINE ASSEMBLERS 31 36 81 28 13293905 ELECTRICAL. ELECTRONIC ASSEMBLEI 2,728 2.446 58893914 WELDERS AND CUTTERS 90 91 243 33490102 MECHANIC AND REPAIRER HELPERS 82 140 5532 Number of Oct upations 0111KOMMIDAIIMMIIMMIIMIllt4E0 KO1987 Gee. Emp. in Target SICs 565
15.6%117
2.4%15,44517.0%
8135,4049.5% 37.8%
14,93915 9%
9 229 1,0636.7%1987 Ott. as % of Growth SICs
1987 Total Emp. - Growth SICs 3,616 4,811 90,639 8,573 14,307 94,118_.28.7%32,117 15,918n'
2/2/89 -- 4:45 PM Los Angeles Economic Roundtable Page 3
TARGET GROWTH OCCUPATIONS Table 30 ES
BUSINESS SERYtCESCODE OCCUPATIONAL TITLE 5065 7321 7331 7372 7374 7379 792 739725108 COMPUTER PROGRAMMER AIDES 525 493 81 27853508 SILL AND ACCOUNT CCLLECTORS 89 1,188 27455311 TYPISTS - -WORD PROCESSING E.UIP 161 40555338 BOOKKEEPING ACCOUNTING CLERKS 1 30456011 COMPUTER OPS- -EX PERIPHERAL cq 131 420 834 2455601 7 DMA ENTRY /MYERS- -EX COMPOSI 323 1 386 143 42058008 PROD PLANNING, EXPEDITING CLER 221 1285802E TRAFFIC SNIPPING RECEIVING CLKS 43183002 PRECISION INSPECT TEST GRADERS'3005 PRODUCTI1N INSPECT TEST GRADE 244 298U5119 MACHINERY MAINT MECHANICS NEC85302 AUTOMOTITE MECHANICS8570 5 DATA PROCESSING EQUIP REPAIRERS 753 1,368891 t 1 PRECISIONGRINDERS ANC RELATED91117 !MACH TOOL CUTTING OPS- -METAL P91502 NUMERICAL MACH TOOL OMMET91505 COMB PUCK TOOL SETTERSMET, P91508 COMB MACH TOOL "S- - METAL, P9170 29170592525
WELDING MACH SL NS, SET-UP 0'WELDING MACH OPERATORS AND TENBINDERY MACH SETTERS, SET-UP 0
rim925 43 PRINTING PRESS MACHINE OPS TEN' 123925 46 BINDERY MACHINE OPERATORS
25192997 MACHINESEtTERS& SET-UP OM N;93102 AIRCRAFT MUMBLERSPRECISION MINMI93111 ELECTROtECH EQUIP ASSEMBLERS-
ELECTRICAL EQUIP ASSEMBLERS - -P9311 49319 7 PRECISIONASSEMBLERS--METAL N93902 MACHINE ASSEMBLERS93905 ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICASSEMBLEI
WELDERS IMO CUTTERS981 02 MECHANICAND REPAIRER HELPERS,
32 Number If Occupations (5 IIIIIMINIIIIGININIC111111MIK)1,648 1,188
25.1%379
7.0%1,42912.9%
2,93420.6%
I 6,126.0%
RIME3 0548.4%
I298
9,9%
19 87 Oec. Emp. In Target SICa19 87 Oec. es % of Growth StCs 9.5%1987 Total Emp. - Growtr:StCs 17,356 4,734 5,426 11,092 14,267 6,232 36 515 2,999
2/2/89 -- 4:45 PM Los Angeles Economic Roundtable Pege 4
hC 4
TARGET GROWTH OCCUPATIONS Table 3EIES AUTO MECH. SERVICESCUDE OCCUPATIONAL TITLE 7538 7539 551125108 COMPUTER PRCORAMMER AIDES
53508 BILL AND ACCOUNT COLLECTORS55311 TYPISTSWORD PROCESSING EQUIP
V1 4O655338 BOOKKEEPING, ACCOUNTING CLERKS56011 COMPUTEROPS--EX PERIPHERAL Ea56017 DATA ENTRY NEVUS- -EX COMPOSIN.58008 PROD, PLANNING., EXPEDITING CLERK,5802883002
TRAFFIC SHIPP0G, RECEIVING CLKSPRECISION INSPECT TEST. GRADERS
03005 PRODUCTION T EINSPECT.85119 MACHINERY MAINT MECHANICS NEC85302 AUTOMOTIVE MECHANICS 3,808 2,304 6,36685705 DATA PROCESSING EQUIP REPAIRERS891 11 PRECISION GRINDERS AND RELATED91 1 17 MACH TOOL CUTTING, OPS --METAL, P91 502 NUMERICAL MACH TOOL OPS- - MET 19150591 5089170291705
COMB MACH TOOL SETTERS - -MET, PICOMB MACH TOOL OPSMETAL PLAtWELDING MACH SETTERS, SET- UP 071WELDING :UCH OPERATORS AND TEN
92525 BINDERY MACH SETTERS SET-UP OP92543 PRINTING PRESS MACHINE OPS,TENE92546 BINDERY MACHINE OPERATORS9299793102
MACHINE SETTERS &SET-UP CPS, NCAIRCRAFT ASSEMBLERS--PRECISION
93111 ELECT ROMECH EQUIP ASSEMBLERS- -ELECTRICAL EQUIP ASSEMBLERSPI93 1 1 4
93197 PRECISIONASSEMBLERSMETAL N93902 MACHINE ASSEMBLERS93905 ELECTRICAL. ELECTRONIC ASSEMBLE(93914 WELDERS ANO CUTTERS98102 ME:HAW:AND REPAIRER HELPERS, 211 60232 Number et Occupations (1) (2) (3)
1987 Om Emj. In Target SIC, 3,808 2,515 8,37425.7%
32,627
1987 Mc. a, % of Growth SICs 43.5% 46.3%1987 Total Emp. - Growth SICs 8,761 5,434
212189 -- 4;45 PM , . 1 Los Aagalaa Economic RoundtablePogo S
.; ,1
TARGET GROWTH OCCUPATIONS Table 3OES OF SICS TARGETED % OF LA EMP 1 GROWTH % GROWTH SEPS
CODE OCCUPATIONAL TITLE 37 OCC EMPS LA EMP 87 TOTAL I 07-92 87-92299%
87-921e625108 COMPUTER PRCGRAMMER AIDES NI 1 763
1 551371%
28.3%4 7571 1,421
5350855311
BILL ANDACCOUNTCOLLECTORS 548414,902
1 0111,567
18 4%105%
8031,921
17 574TYPI5T5--WORD PROCESSING DUIP 1y613 10 8%
553385601156017
MI:KEEPING., ACCOUNTING CLERKSCOMPUTERL ^5--EX PERIPHERAL cqDATA ENTRY KEYERS--EX OMPOSI I
3 526 4.3% 82,333 91331 113%8On 2,564
2,84120.9%15 5%
12128018,364
2.554 20 8% 7461 1271 7673 10.1
208 1 1%13 5%12 1%
58008 PROD, PLANNING, EXPEDIIiiirA' ER gE1
35,947I 097
47.8933.5%
14,51931,135
1,9593 774M'S TRAFFIC SNIPPING RECEIYINGCLKS83002 PRECISION INSPECT, TEST, GRADERS 7 6 724 53 2%
27 1%13 5%
12.64317,0397 093
2,4982,740
825
19 8%15 1%11 6%
2 2302 8351 062
83005 PRODUCTION INSPECT, TEST, GRADEMACHINERY MAI NT MECHANICS, NEC
95
4 61696085119
85302 AnIOMOTITE MECHANICS 3 12 4782 1211 049
610%39 5%440%
20,4445 :.642'54
2,3251 807
302
II 4%33 7%127%65%
21 2%
2 005216583
85705 DATA PROCiSSINGE.411P REPAIRERS 289111 PRECISIONGRINDERS AND RELATED 691117 MACH TOOL CUTTING OPS--METAL, P 7 1 455
I 922265%56 9%
5,.423,378
358715
81732791502 NUMERICAL MACH TOOL OPS--MET 6
91505915089170291705
COMB MACH TOOL SETTERS-MET, P 6) 486 28 7% 1,691 342550
20 2'7 32421 01 50313 0% 258
COMB MACM TOOL OPS- - METAL. PIA el_ 433 16 5% 2,618WELDING tilCH SETTERS, SET-UP 0 5WELOING MACH OPERATORS AND TEN 6
440 17,2% 2,554 333290 9.6% 3017 336 11 4% 303
92525 BINDERY HACH SETTERS, SET- UP 0 5 997 779% 1,2804,062
213492
166% 16692543 PRINTING PRESS MACHINE OPS TEN s 5 2.557 62.9% 12 I% 48092546 BINDERY HArnINE OPERATORS 4't 1 065 69 9%
785 245%4 020 98.3%2.047 4.55%
111:243,2014,088
203586724
13 3%183%177%
;94311412
92997931029311193114931 9-1-
MACHINE:. & 5ET-UP OPS N.AIRCRAEL BLERS -- PRECISION 2
4 401 871 I98% 447ELECTROIS. JUIP ASSEMBLERS- 3ELECTRICAL 8..11PASSEM8LER5--P 5 5_,452 X27% 8,689 1 583 18.2% 196PRECI510NMEMBLERS--METAL,N (2 2 177 767% 2 837 432 15 2% 115MACHINE ASSEMBLERS 6 396 173% 2 285 321
2 219I VS
513
.40%i7 0%
2211 280
9390293905 ELECTRICAL ELECTRONIC ASS3MBLE1 3 5 762 44 2% 13035
9,1324,185
_14 0%12 3%
928298
93914 WELDERS .ND CUTTERS 55
1,018 I I I%1,L.N0 26 0%98102 MECHAN.CAND REPAIRER HELPERS,
32 Number ef Occupations (162)1987 Om Emp. In Target SICs1987 Mc. as Sc? Growth Sips1987 To1111 Emp.-'Growth SICs
82,242 25 2%16 8%
326 210 44 389 136% 44,819
489,491
2/2/89 -- 4 45 PM Los Angeles Economic Roundtable
274Pne
TABLE 3TARGET GROWTH OCCUPATIONS
Exptanatorg Notes
All the cal -nations and analyses ere based upon occupation estimates and employment dote provided by the Employment and Data ResearchDivi-lon of the Employment Development Department.
The Target Growth Occupations were selected from hundreds of possible occupations. In addition to being e constituent part of the growthindustries, growth occupations were screened for: overall size, eiNficant size within the IndLoriee, overlap among industries, favorablegrowth foressete,SYP levels between tend 6 (end a few carefully consideredexceptions with SYP 7), and suitable wages
OES CODE - Occupational Employment Statistic. A five digit coding scheme which clusters 3i miler occupations into epproximetel y 700occupetion groups.
SIC - Standard Industrial Clueification code, wed by Depertments of Labor, Commerceand State EOD to distinguish industries by theirproducts or services. The 4-digit spe.ification is the most fine-grained and useful for purposes of treckir.e and targeting. Thirty -seven SIC's were selected for targeting. Four-digit industries have been clustered Into eight 2-digit groupirge to provide enoverview of ai miler industr..r,. e.g., the printing industry is SIC 27. Note: in few tests, I nduetri as from different 2-dIgit familieshave been grout !together became of the footut on ovarlepping occupations.
EMPLOYMENT FIGURES - The 1987 estimated (by EDD) number of jobs for each of the growth OES occupations for each growth industry(SIC) is recorded in the cells.
NUMBER OF OCCUPATIONS - Thirty-two OES occupations have been selected for targeting in the 37 4-digit SIC industries. For each 4 -digitSIC, the number of mulching occupation, is identified in parentheses on the first summery line et the bottom of the table.
1987 OCC. EMP. INGROWTH SICs - The sum of the 1987 target OES jobs In each targetglowthindustry.
198 7 OCC. AS 9S OF GROWTH SICs - Identifies the percent of targeted occupations es a proportion of the total employment In the growthindustry.
1987 TOTAL EM?. - GROWTH SICe - Avt 'see employment for the year 1987 for each growth industry.
2/3/89 -- 5:09 PM
tl ) rcy % 0
Los Angeles Economic Roundtable Pegs 7
TABLE 3TARGET GROWTH OCCUPATIONS
Explanatory Notes (Continued)
SUMMARY CALCULATIONS ON PAGE 6:
OF SIGs- The number in parentheses Indicates the number of growth industries in which a given target OES occupation appears. The totalnumber of intersections is 162.
TAROETED OCC EMPS - The sum of the estimated 1987 employment for each tergetedgrowth occupation for the growth industries. The totaltargeted occupations is 62,242. These occupations account for 16.8% of all the Jobs in the growth SICs.
S OF LA EMP - The percent of the employment of the targeted OES occupation ingrowth Industries es a proportion of OES occupation in allindustries in Los Angeles County. The targeted occupations in the growth industries eccounted for 25.2% of tba total Industryemployment in the thirty-two occupations.
IA EMP 87 TOTAL - Estimate of total employment in OES occupations in 1987, Mall industries. Rase thirty-tvo occupations accounted for326,210 employees.
GROWTH 87-92 - EDD forecast of growth for the OES occupations in all industries for Los Angeles County, 1987-1992. These occupationsare forecast to add some 44,389 additional Jobs.
% GROWTH 87-92 - EDD forecast of percent growth for the OES occupation, in all industries for Lee Angeles County, 1987-1992. Theaverage growth for the thirty -two occupations is forecast to be 13.6%.
SEPS 87-92 - EDD forecast ofjob separations due to retirement, quits, and fires.
2/3189 -- 5:09 PM Los Angeles Economic Roundtable Page 8
276
274
Attachment 2
Los Angeles Private Industry Council
Los Angeles Economic Roundtable
POST PPOGRAN Euvummwr AND RETENTION SURVEY
277
100%
80%
eo%
4011
20%
0%
POST PROGRAM EMPLOYMENT AND RETENTION OFTITLE IIA ADULT PLACEMENTS: 198A-1887
PERCENT
AT TERMINATION 13 WK$ A:TER TERM.. AT INTERVIEW
THREE POINTE IN TIME
BM RETAIN ORIGINAL JOB MI EP:WU:NED-OTHER JOB1=3 UNEMPLOYED
PIC FOLLOWUP SURVEY,
216
Attachment 3
Los Angeles Private Industry Council
Los Angeles SC°11°MiC Roundtable
SOCIO-ECNOMIC GIARACTEPISTICS OP
JTPA PARTICIPANTS
TIM PROGRAM
2.)j.0 4
ct -
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CW,RACTERISTICSAdult Enrollments 78%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Percent
.-------------X----------------.__...x
13- 7-----6-4- ---64-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 PLANNED 88
TrendsSCHOOL ORO -+- LTD.ENG. --*- HANDVD -a- CFFENCER
--4- PUB.K.ST,
% of total entollments
i
280----
QM.
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICSYouth Enrollments 78%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Percent
84.85 85-86 86-87 87-88 Planned 88
TrendSCH.OROP. LTD.ENGLISH HANDCPD -9-- OFFENDER
PUB.Assr.
% of total enrollments
ETHNICITY AND GENDERAdult Enrollments 78%
84-85 85-86
WHITE -4 BLACKMALE 4 FEMALE
86-87
Trends87-88 PLANNED 88
9 ASIAN/PAWS
96 of total adult lnrollmenta
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ETHNICITY AND GENDERYouth Enrollments 78%
Percent
84-85 85-86 86-87
Trends87-88 PLANNED 88
WHITE I BLACK 44 HISPANIC 9 ASIAN/PAWS--X MALE 0-- FEMALE
% of total youth onrollmonta
00
281
Mr. SIMON. I thank you very much.Regarding the latter part of your statement, what federal pro-grams would you change there that you are talking about?Mr. FRANDSEN. Well, for example, I believe that concentrating onpublic housing or something like housing, exacerbates the problem.I suggest that new approach that would tend to disperse publiclysupported housing throughout the community, it might be donethrough rent vouchers for example.I also urge that. the delivery of financial support for those mostin need, not be done in such a way that undermines the familyunit, and does not encourage for example, teenage pregnancy andyoung single family female head of household. I believe that wellmeaning feds-al programs have in many ways undermined the var-ious things Via are trying to help. I think new, innovative ap-proaches need to be looked at. These are not new ideas; they arenot new with me. I am sure you have heard them before.
F 'ON. In your PIC Council, do you have (Anyone represent-ing the field of education, specificall., vocational education?Mr. FRANDSEN. Yes, we do. We have someone from the StateBoard of Education, I think we have somebody from the Co amuni-ty Colleges.Who are they Dan?Mr. SIMON. Do you want to give your name fol the record herealso?Mr. FRANDSEN. TI. s Dan Slatter who is our Executive Direc-tor.Mr. SIMON'. And are we just reading your words of praise for himin your formal statement?Mr. SLATTER. We have a proprietary school represented by Rich-ard Chavez, and we have a school district represented by a Dr.Johnson of a community college.Mr. SIMON. And do you have labor unions represented in yourPIC?Mr. FRANDSEN. We have one from the United Auto Workers,Paul Bluto, a very effective member. So we do have organized laboron our panel. We have two representatives from education. Wehave representatives from the State Employment Training Panel.We have John Max from the Los Angeles Urban League, one of thecommunity based organizationsI didn't bring,my entire roster.Mr. SIMON. I am just trying to get a feel for what the situationis.Mr. FRANDSEN. We have attempted to have a broad representa-tion from the community based organizations and from the provid-ers.Los Angeles County I as a unique situation where we have theCounty SDA and we have what we call prime agents who them-selves are subcontractors who have contracts with other communi-ty based organization3. We have representatives from the primeagent on our board also. We have representation from those whodirectly provide services to those in need.Mr. SIMON. I was reading your statistics which are quite impres-sive, bud- the reality is as we move toward helping the harder toemploy, inevitably "success" in quotes, is going to diminish, andthose statistics are not going to look as good.
284
282
I hope we don't get too wrapped up in statisticswe want to getgood performance ard we all want to have good performance, butwe are also going to have to reach out to the higher risk endpeople.
Mr. Porter, you talk about stipends and learning reinforcementpayments, but can you give me a little more of a explanation as towhat you are talking about here. Are you talking about a Federalrequirement or an option or what are you talking about?
Mr. PORTER. Senator, under our at-risk youth program which ishalf of our youth program, and our youth programs are half of ourentire program, we are building a capability to measure over timebenchmark improvements or compett ncies learned by individualyouth at a given point in time, and we track that through central-ized management. We would like the ability and flexibility to beable to award those youths with cash payments when they achievecertain benchmarks.
Also, I think in your legislation there is being given consider-ation going back to paying stipends to youth enrolled in certaintypes of programs as we had under CETA, and that is absolutelycritical to our being able to reach out and target the most at-risk,particularly gang members, single head of households, second andthird generation welfare families. So it is absolutely critical.
And in terms of length of training, we prefernow we are doingan-average of 14-16 weeks. I understand we will be able to providelonger term training under the proposed revision, but essential tothat is incremental payments to the participants to go into theirpockets to provide them the income flow to be able to continuelonger term training. And longer term training results in betterlong-term placement with better growth opportunity.
Mr. SIMON. You also mentioned the need for greater linkage withlocal education agencies. Do you want to expand on that at all?
Mr. PORTER. Well, we support that concept and over the last yearin terms of our at k youth program, we have developed a demon-stration 'arability with a few of our youth providers whereby wehave linked with the Los Angeles Unified School District, and em-ployed instructorscertified instructorsto provide adult basiceducation on-site at the demonstration program at the individualorganizations that we have selected, and it is working very effec-tively.
Mr. SIMON. I have a strong impression that we are not workingenough with local education groups, and to the extent that thatcan be encouraged, obviously we should be doing it.
Let me thank both of you for your testimony. We appreciate yourbeing here.
Mr. FRANDSEN. Thank you. An.: thank you for reading the testi-mony in advance.
Mr. SIMON. Your full testimony will entered in the record.On our final panel, we have Mr. Robei t Bloom, the executive di-
rector of the Alameda County PIC, and Kaye Rex Kiddoo, the di-rector of the Employment Development Department of the State ofCalifornia.
eta
283
STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. BLOOM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,ALAMEDA COUNTY PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL
Mr. BLOOM. Good morning.I certainly welcome the interest being shown by Congress andthe JTPA program, and although there isn't a sunset JTPA, I wel-come the opportunity periodically to revisit the program and seewhether we are indeed proceeding.In review of your legislation, I see two major thrusts being pro-posed. First, the very specific targeting to the population is beingserved, the type of services being offered, and the resources. Andsecond, a major restructuring of youth programs within ourNation. And I would like to give some summary comments on cer-tain issues I have concerti with surrounding thee two thrusts.First, in terms of targeting of the population, this is obviously amove to target into a very narrow, defined need, and at first Iwould like to objec. to the term "hard to serve," because I viewthat as a systems 1 eactian to an individual. Defining my ease orlack of ease in serving someone, I would really suggest we strikethat term from these discussions and speak more to most inneed," rather than hard to serve.
Mr. SIMON. And what is your suggestion?Mr. Bloom. Use 4he term "most in need," and strike "hard toserve." Hard to serve is a systems reaction.Targeting the most in need is defined to be those lacking basicskills, in many ways does preempt local dcbision making, and I willcome back to that point throughout my testimony.While we are mainly concernet. with the lack of basic skills, theFederal law, I believe, still must assure that we are all inclusiveand don't become so very much so an exclusive system, wherebythe targeting is so very narrow that of those eligible, there aremore that are not targeted than those that are very narrowly tar-getedand I have a concern for that.At the local level, I would argue that's where a needs analysis,local planning, local decision making is the best tool to targetwithin a broader eligibility determination for these type of pro-grams.Our Private Irdistry Council certainly does not deny the needfor basic skill- aisition; we are spending a lot of attention andimportance u, is issue. There are tremendous needs, however,being experie. by the general eligible population .that stillspeaks to vocat training, exposure to their first job, picking upbasic employability skills.As a side note, the increase to the age 24 for youth, I think,doesn't square with the reality of many of our younger adults whosee themselves as adults and wish access to adult life decisions intheir life. My alternative would be that perhaps there would be anoverlapping group in there, perhaps 18 to. 24, where you have fullaccess to the widest range of services. Be they headed toward theadult type decisions, or be they catching up and certain remedi-ation of where opportunities missed in your younger age group.In terms of targeting via the funding formula, I have a concernthat the current proposal in many ways is a drastic shift oi re-sources. And that the unemployment factor still should be included
2d6
284
in the formula because in many ways that is a measure of the lackof jobs in a given area. And if the real issue is matching job futureswith jobs, if there are no jobs the resources still need to be target-ed into those type of communities.
The new concept of areas with substantial numbers of disadvan-taged, again has been mentioned this morning as lacking a database, and I struggled trying to come up so for today's hearing withwhat the impact would be on Alameda County, and I don't begin tohave the data to assist with that. I think it favors the urban con-centration, and I am concerned that Congress not send a messagethat if you are poor, and you are unemployed' and you live in arural area, or you live in a suburban area, that you will not haveequal access to these tax supported programs.
Any funding formula obviously is a political compromise, and mysuggestion likewise would be that we await the 1990 census, andonce, again try to strike a political compromise on the funding for-mula which speaks to fairness and equity in the allocation of re-sources, and relatively equal access by the targeted population tothose resources.
In terms of services to be provided, interestingly, in your Bill, Idid not find any new services, any new alternatives. They are allthere just as they ere currently in the JTPA program. What againarises is the question what is the purpose of JTPA, and whether ornot we are more so becoming an education program. My pointagain would be that JTPA seek a central focus and not become sodiffused in attempts to be all things to all people. My fear is thatthe JTPA program may lose its niche in the market and that wemay suffer a certain marketing dilemma as to who we are, both forrecruiting participants and for interesting employers in the pro-gram.
In summary, on the services, I am concerned that the Bill doesn'tpropose any new services, but only proposes a certain construct ofho x those services are delivered in a given community, and againwe are seeing an erosion of some of the flexibility that has provensuccessful across the nation, recognizing that there are a variety ofneeds and priorities in our various communit!.:s.
In terms of the performance standards, I applaud your efforts ataddressing long term benefits, and also assuring that there not beany negative influences, however, as .1 read yoar proposal, you arecreating now four separate performance standard systems, and thisis a tremendous burden on the system. If you are not aware ofthem, even the current system has required a computer program tooperate it, and the human factor at decision making, at the PIClevel or with elected officials, is fast being replaced by computerspreadsheets that dictate what the performance must be, and Ithink that is not the direction we wish to go. The performancestandards must be simplified.
In terms of a new youth initiative, I guess my first question iswhy. The current JTPA program is a very expansive one in termsof who can be served, with what types of services and with whatdesired outcome. And again not seeing any new services in there, Isee, this more as an administraL:ve construct of how service deliv-ery may occur, beginning with a categorization where somebody isgoir back to the old CETA program that youth are categorized in
287
285
boxes, and once you. are in that box, there is a prescribed remedy,and I have a concern that we net move in that direction.Obviously the creation ot :our major youth programs with cer-tain subparts, particularly the exemplary youth subpart, /loin cre-ates a tremendous administrative and resources burden on thesystem, and again my question is whether this leads to improvedquality and improved long term assistance, or whether it is moreadministration and bureaucracy for the system.The fair chance program looks to be a very effective alternative.My concern, however, is that that not be the one model that pre-scribes for the nation.The replication of successful programs, the program also looksattractis my sense is that there is a lot of knowledgeout in te field on best practices, and those best practices areeither already in use, or they may simply be sitting on bookshelves gathering dust, and we need to take them off the bookshelves. -And the thrust on youth programs should be the exchangeof inforination of what has already been learned, the in -Ision per-haps of additional resources so we can reach more youth in thiscountry, and then the coil active development of new approaches onthis basic education issue that we are all grappling with.I will conclude with some general administrative issues. On thePIC recomposition, I don't; ee the current changes being that dra-matic, and having little consequence for my PIC, I virtually havethe composition that you are envisioning there. I am concernedthough that they are not the added prescription that ny'ght promptcer'sin areas not to be able to have the kind of represen ,an theymay desire.
On the recapture and carry over issue, I think the 90 percent ex-penditure proposal is a very narrow window and would suggestrather perhaps an 80 percent expenditure reoirement.The expansion on the 10 percent window to possibly _Je a 15 per-cent window --for non-economically disadvantaged as well as the in-crease for allowable supportive services from 15 to 25 percent, Ithink are excellent ideas and I provide my suppo,' ose.In terms of the funding shifts o: money. from Atilt g
increasedCorijiessioital allocations, I do have some conc....ns with. I guess Iam & little i.leubtful whether there may be increased allocations atthe federal levL, and the switches of adult money may deprive tbuadult population of its needed devotion of attention and resourcesalso.On the ex ,anion of the programs, I count now 10 different pro-grams for year round and summer activities for a PIC. And also asyou know, we have a EDWAAA legislation we are implementingnow, and. ..gain this is, a tremendous burden, and I would ask forrelief from so many different titles, so many different targeted pro-grams bL.ectuse ,pat brings about a tremendous administrativeburden.In conclusion, I guess I am here conveying a simple message. Tobuild upon the strength of the partnership of ,private sector andlocal elected leaders. Thi'.in my mind remains a unique model of
public governance. One of the few in the nation that has looked atthis approach to public governance.
286
Keep it simple and do not expect the JTPA program to provide ahandle hold for a major effort at social engineering in the educa-tion field and in other areas of need that do impact the labor force,but again the JTPA program must maintain its definite program.
It may sound as though I am fighting change in my cr itunt.nts,fighting change, that is not true. PIC does recognize that changesare ever present in these programs and that's again why we wel-come this inquiry into the job training program. However, theJTPA program already has a self-correcting mechanism, and if youwere to visit our program, we are beginning to make a lot ofchanges speaking to quality, speaking to long term retention,speaking to serving new population groups, basically reeducationbeing one of them.
We have a record low unemployment rate, and we are down tothat final band of those individuals who still cannot compete evenin a healthy economy, and we u. more so becoming a participantdriven jcb training program than we may have been in the past.
One example, I believe, is that we also were nominated for-thePresidential Excellence Award and we happen to have received it.We are one of the award recipients going to Washington next weekfor an out of school youth program, and I am able to run that typeof outstanding program within the current constraints and allow-ances of the JTPA legislation.
So I- conclude my written testimony by mentioning that withinmy written testimony, there is some comments from the WesternJob Training Partnership Association. I serve on a part-time basisas staff support to a multi-state association.
We have included for your benefit some general concepts that wehave subscribed to 'hat we would encourage you to include in yourlegislative delibere.ons. Thank you.
Mr. SIMON. Thank you. And thank you for obviously doing someresearch so that you knew what you were talking about here. I ap-preciate it.
Mr. Kiddoo?
STATEMENT OF KAYE REX KIDDOO, DIRECTOR, EMPLOYMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. KIDDOO. Good morning, sir. I am Kaye Kiddoo, I am the Di-rector of California's Employment Development Department calledEDD, and I am also the State liaison for the Job Training Partner-ship Act in California.
EDD is one of the largest agencies of its kind in the world. Mydepartment as the JTPA administrative entity for California andoperates the Job Service, unemployment insurance, disability in-surance, labor market information, and we collect all the payrolltaxes. I welcome this opportunity to testify because the amend-ments you are proposing to JTPA would have a significant effecton, those programs in California.
Employment and training programs are now more critical to theeconomic well-being of this nation than ever before. We have astrong employment and training network in California with 23major programs. These 23 Liajor programs serve over five millionCalifornians and are funded with resources at more than two and
287
one-half billion dollars. One of our main objectives is the effectivecoordination of these programs and resources to avoid wasteful du-plication and to provide the best mix of services. We are striving toachieve better coordination in California, and would oppose anychanges that would prevent this.
We believe that the key to program success is r aintaining an ef-fective balance between federal, state, and local responsibilities.The federal role should be one of policy development and generalprogram directionone of overall guidance, not micro-managementof State and local programs. State level coordination is essential toensure that our limited job training and educational resources areused most effectively. The State agencies address the unique needsof each state. The local JTPA entities and Job Service Offices ad-dress the unique needs of each community. Clearly, California'sneeds differ from those of Wyoming and New Hampshire. Theneeds of California's north coast, with its declining timber indus-try, are different from those of the heavily urbanized Los Angelesbasin. The State and local entities must have the flexibilityandthat has been stressed over and over this morningto design pro-grams to meet their own unique needs. Any system which attemptsto bypass the unique roles in this balanced partnership would un-dermine our State's employment and training services.
Because time is limited, I cannot offer specific comments on eachaspect of your Bill. Therefore, my primary focus will center on cwoissues which relate to my concerns about federal, state and localroles.
First, with regard to the allocation formulas, our preliminary es-timates indicate that the proposed changes will result in an overalldecrease in funding to California. The Bill proposes to acldre.ss per-ceived nationwide funding inequities by redefining the economical-ly disadvantaged population. However, we question the accuracy ofavailable data which currently are based on outdated figures fromthe 1980 Census. Large and significant shifts in California's popula-tion in the last nine years makes Census data unreliable as a meas-ure of need. For example, the enormous influx of Southeast Asianrefugees into California, and the large numbers of newly legalizedpersons under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986,many of whom need intensive services, are not accurately reflectedin existing data.
Last year alone our State gained over 700,000 new citizens.Any changes in the funding formula should carefully considerthe reliability and availability of data, as well as the effect on bothlarge and small states.In addition, I have concerns ebout the proposed Fair Chance
Youth Opportunity Challenge Grants. The Challenge Grant propos-al has the potential for duplicating existing systems as well as frag-menting funding and services. Separate administrative structuresand delivery systems only hinder effectiveness. Our experiences,for example, with the original JTPA Title W-C Veterans Program,proved unworkable because of its administrative structureand Ibelieve that bears this out. We have now integrated the VeteransProgram into the existing JTPA Program structure resulting in im-proved services. We suggest that any special initiatives be made anintegral part of the mainstream JTPA Program.
200
288
We believe that one of the attractive and effective features ofJTPA has been its relatively nonprescriptive environment, whichpermits flexibility again, at the State and local level. This has al-lowed us to achieve measurable success, particularly by involvingthe private sector in the leadership role. We need, and must pro-vide a cohesive, comprehensive systemone which offers stabilityof funding and flexibility of program operation at the State andlocal levels if we are to properly serve the people of California.
Thank you, sir.Mr. SIMON. I thank you, very, very much.First of all, Mr. Kiddoo, as I read your responsibilities, you are a
busy man.Mr. KIDDOO. Yes, sir.Mr. SIMON. Job service, unemployment insurance, disability in-
surance, labor market information and tax collection programs.You have substantial responsibility.
On the question of California suffering a decrease in funding, Idon't think that result is possible because we set up the allocationso that each state will be held harmless at 100 percent of thepresent level, and each local community at 90 percent level. But itis possible that there are factors that we do not count accurately,and one of the factors you mentioned was the new immigrants.
To what extent do you find, and if I may address this question toboth of you, to what extent do you find new immigrants as partici-pants in the JTPA Program?
Mr. Btoom. Speaking for my area, Alameda County, we have notyet been hit that heavily with refugee population. The City of Oak-land is in Alameda County, they operate their own PIC Program.They have had a tremendous influx.
I am aware though through the Western Association that in a lotof the rural areas of California, particularly up and down the SanJoaquin ValleyFresno, Bakersfieldthose areas have had a tre-mendous influx of Indochinese refugees, particularly that have puta tremendous burden on their welfare systems as well as job train-ing programs. I am sure their demographics today are tremendous-ly different from 1980.
Mr. Simon Mr. Kiddoo?Mr. KIDDOO. May I ask Al Dave to come up and talk about Los
Angeles, just to answer that question?Al? Al is one of our district administrators, and he is our expert
on youth programs in the Southern California area.Mr. DAVE. Basically with regard to the influx of immigrants and
Indochinese refugees and the amnesty program as well as the issueof political asylum, historically in the beginning of JTPA therewere significant numbers of individuals participating in JTPA, andonce we came to the 1986 Reform Act, they began to drop out. Nowthat California is pushing the issue of consideration for JTPA forthis particular population, we would expect it to expand. And thereis a significant need. The one problem though is that most of thepopulation will require English as the second language, so that fur-ther complicates the matter of success under the current JTPAsubsidy. Again, you know, the cost for English as the second lan-guage and trying to couple it with OJT and/or work experience, issignificant.
291
289
So I would say that as far as statistical data, there is no hardnosed statistical data, but I would venture to say that in the cur-rent system in Los Angeles County as a whole, it probably repre-sents around 10 percent.
Mr. SIMON. Thank you.Mr. KIDDOO. We incidentally got a special grant as all States
should, you know, for the implementation of IRCA, and of thatgrant we took roughly about, I think, it is 374 million, and went toour Department of Educatien for teaching people, you know, Eng-lish as a second language. Our Superintendent of Schools an-nounced a couple weeks ago that he will be out of funds at the endof April. They are just overwhelmed by the demand.
Mr. SIMON. Incidentally, our own staff statistics indicate thatCalifornia is supposed to be one of the states that gains from thenew formula, but obviously we want to review these results. Let mejust add that Congressman Gus Hawkins Chair's counterpart com-mittee over in the House is going to see to it that California doesn'tlose out in the allocation process.
I don't want to have rural areas hurt either. My home address isRoute 1, Makanda, Illinois, population 402that is "rural."
But I also recognize that we should fund programs where thegreatest need exists.
What percentageand forgive me, I don't know very mach aboutAlameda Countywhat percentage of the target population wouldyou guess JTPA Program reaches now?
Mr. BLOOM. It is hard to apply a percentage fact, certainly a na-tional percentage of five percent.
Mr. SIMON. Yes. Five percent is a national figure.Mr. BLoom. That is probably not true of our area, in part, be-
cause of the different demographics. In the suburban area we havejob growth, business expansion, we have business realignment, wehave gone through a lot of plant closureswe have record low un-employment rates right now. So I imagine I am in a much betterposition with my resources currently to reach that band of individ-uals that are in need, but applying a percentage, I am not sure of.
The suburban areas tend to be in the middle of these funding for-mulas, I found, through the history of them, and I am here todayas much speaking for the Western Association, I had a lot of peoplecall me before I came here, concerned that there be some ruralvoice up here today. So my comments are as much out of their situ-ation as well, trying to characterize their situation on these Bugl-ing formulas, not make it an extreme that enhances one directly atthe expense of another area, but the issue of fairness and equity.Whether or not the same per head resource is guaranteed to everyeligible person in the nation, but to have equal access, I imaginethat is virtually impossible. And that is why I described it as a po-litical compromise in the end as to what funding formula eventual-ly comes to be.
Mr. SIMON. And frankly this is what we are trying to do whenwe say no area is going to be funded less than 90 percent of thepresent level. This protects the local areas and rural areas At thesame time as you look nationally at the statistics, and I don't knowwhat it would be in Alameda County, there is no question we arereaching a much higher percentage in many rural and suburban
2j,?
290
areas than we are in some of those urban areas. What we aretrying to do is to target a little more effectively in response to theneed which obviously is in the national interest.
Mr. BLOOM. Two reactions. I think it is fair to say that mostpeople in the system have no problem if the money flows where thepeople are. Again, how you define that is the question, and unfor-tunately some of the discussions have dealt with lets put themoney in urban areas. Well, that of course puts the hackles up onthe rurals and the suburbans, and maybe that type of characteriza-tion is the wrong one. We are truly trying to have the money flowwhere the people are. The definition of who those people are thenbecomes the issue.
Secondly, in my written comment I had the observation that ifyour intent is to derive a formula that does put the money overhere, but you implement the 90 percent and the 110 caps and thewhole harm left, it is going to take us years to ever get over here.So if you have the equal concern over keeping stability in thesystem, I am not sure that you can pass a funding formula that isintended to take us so far over here, because you won't reachthere, or it will take many years to reach there.
Mr. &moil. Let me just sayand I guess everything gets a littlecomplicatedwhen you include inflation, we have had a drop ofabout 22 percent in the funding for the JTPA Program since its ini-tiation. We are hoping to have a modest increase so that themodest increase would go more to those targeted areas where thereis the greater need.
Let me ask you, Mr. Bloom, one other thing. I noted in your com-ment that intrigued me, you talked about a retreat. Did your PICgroup have a retreat; can you just give us a three minute or oneminute description of what you have done, what you are talkingabout?
Mr. BLOOM. Our recent practice has been every two years. OurPIC and/or elected officials jointly have a retreat. I think that isunique. Some PICs have retreats by themselves, our elected offi-cials also.
In my testimony I mentioned at this retreat of about three week-ends ago, focused on this issue about in a period of record low un-employment programs, should we be more so a participant observ-ing job training systems than an employer driven job trainingsystem, not to say that they are mutually exclusive and it is all oneor all the other, but it is a balancing act. But we think we havedone a real good job in our five year history of being an employerresponsive to job training systems. And what we are hearing now isthe increased need for basic and remedial education, need for Eng-lish as a second language, need for real hard core longer termtraining and preparation in which case we've got to set a littlemore attention on that side of the equation of what the design ofour program should be. So it was a very interesting discussion of aday and a half and that is going to help me in my upcoming plan-ning process for the next two year cycle.
203
291
Mr. SIMON. Maybe there are others that do that; I am not awareof others that do that. I think it ;:, a great idea and I commend youfor doing it.Let me thank Mr. Bloom, Mr. Kiddoo, Mr. Dave. We thank you. for your testimony.Our hearing stands adjourned.[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
0
2997-712 (296)
